Don't worry, Blip! You just take your time. Don't let these other people yell at you! You're doing the best you can!
Quite a few people had issues with it being presented as hard sci-fi, when it should have been sci-i fantasy.
That was my biggest problem. They kept presenting this as plausible science fiction so when plot holes and things that didn't make sense would happen it would take me out of the experience.
The whole black hole and wormhole stuff were incorrect as hell and it irritated me a lot because of how it is presented.
Yea I'm guessing the scientist they consulted with who specializes in black holes and made discoveries based on the models rendered to show it based on his calculations got stuff wrong. But you know what you're talking about when it comes to black holes.
Yep, because movies have never hired specialists and then ignored them to be more cinematic.
Jump to about 3:07
Err, it isn't divided into "hard" SF and fantasy. No one ever said that all science fiction has to be plausible and realistic. A lot of the most respected authors in the genre wrote "soft" science fiction, that is SF that takes a lot of liberties with science for the sake of a good story, or did have some plausible science, but focused more on character and social effects of new technologies. It's only science fantasy if there are explicitly supernatural elements in it (and by that I don't mean things that are scientifically impossible, but things that are explicitly fantasy in terms of genre, like ghosts and magic).
So: Star Wars = Science fantasy and Back to the Future = Sc-Fi, even if it's no more probable.
I haven't watched the movie yet, but I haven't heard of any supernatural elements in it. And I don't think I've heard it advertised as a "hard" SF either. Just plain old sci-fi like 90% of it, just with added scientific expertise.
Now if they break their own made up rules, that's a fair criticism.
I didn't *hate* Interstellar -- I thought the acting was fine, the visuals were great, and it's technically a well made film. Honestly, though, and yes I will admit I'm one of those, "Wait, that's not how that works!" folks, that's not even what bothered me. What bothered me is that it seemed to be making up the rules as it went along, to the point where it just left me underwhelmed. There's also the fact that I figured out the basics of the climatic twist early on so I wasn't surprised by it at all, but that may be due to me being familiar with sci-fi tropes.
It's not that I dislike Nolan, either, in case anyone thinks that. I *love* both Memento and Inception. Interstellar, though, seems much more patchwork, making up the rules they need as they went along, at least to me. That meant I, personally, couldn't overlook the "hundred item list" problems I was seeing.
So, yeah, I ended up giving it 5.5 / 10 on my entirely subjective "how much did I like this" scale.
One issue I really can't go on without mentioning though (SPOILER!!!):
Plan B is to use frozen embryos on their ship to rebuild the human race by implanting them in surrogates. Um... why, then, is Anne Hatheway the only female on the ship? You're kinda screwed if anything happens to her.
Male pregnancy is theoretically possible: implanting an embryo into the male body with the placenta attached to one of the organs, then doing a c-section when it's ready to pop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy
Not having seen the film, did Anne Hathaway know this was her "purpose", similar to the dead female astronaut in the original Planet of the Apes, but without the sex? If I was hired to pump out children like piglets, I would have stipulated that at least some of the embryos would be my own children.
No, they just say the embryos will be implanted into surrogates, without explicitly mentioning her.
I've heard some argue that there are mechanical wombs somewhere, but I don't buy it. Even if that was mentioned in passing somewhere, that just goes towards Doug exposition complaints.
Now I wonder what Irving said after the "They're really good at the jazz part." It seems to cut so i'm guessing something awful xP.
Also it's obvious why Slavery Brian didn't see Princess and the Frog.
Somewhere there is a secret thinktank dedicated solely to figuring out unique and emotionally gut wrenching ways to off Wes Bentley. And it seems like McConaughey was just born to have a funnybot sidekick...I mean not in a movie but in real life.
There's a part where he's having a beer next to Funny Bot and he calls him "slick." Something about this just seems so right.
The people who are going to bitch about Interstellar are the same people who bitched about Gravity. They think pointing out inconsequential scientific inaccuracies makes them sound smart. The phrase "you must be fun at parties" exists for these people.
I'm an aerospace engineer with a minor in astrophysics, I KNOW that you can't get from the Hubble to the ISS, just like I KNOW that there's somethings about black holes in this movie that aren't true. Who cares it's just a fucking movie.
I want to see Interstellar, so I'll skip the review for now, but I do agree with what you said. This science fiction, so like all science fiction I expect it to take what we know and extrapolate and exaggerate science facts and theories.
if you want to speak in generalities then we can, people who love Interstellar are going to say to people who dislike it are just looking for things in it that can't actually happen. Maybe for some people, in my case I can't get past the holes in the storytelling, not the science part.
I LOVED Gravity, but was disappointed by Interstellar. I loved the first act on Earth, but then it hit a snag in pacing, and then the third act happened.
You know who's fun at parties? People who get laughed at, not laughed with. And who don't even realise it...
"Earth sucks & is dying so send a hunky dude to find a new, better place to live" blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I'll just watch Elysium again, good reviews though!
Also, more "2 Brians & a Jake" please. Soooooooooooo funny!
The trailer for Dr. Black, Mr. Hyde is great because it's all in rhyme.
"A monster he could not control, has taken over his very soul!"
Interstellar basically reminded me of an updated old scifi movie, if that makes sense.
Nolan's really traditional in his methods. He doesn't like CGI, he doesn't like HFR, he doesn't like 3D, he doesn't even like digital cameras. So the look and even the plot of this movie reminded me a lot of something like 2001: A Space Odyssey, except this didn't put me to sleep like Kubrick did. I'm a huge fan of Arthur C. Clarke and this reminds me of something he would write. If you want a change of pace from something like Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Wars, this is a nice return to pre-Lucas scifi
The Big Hero 6 video definitely proved that I'm not here for the review. They could talk about literally anything for 40 minutes and I would watch it and be entertained.
I know right. That was one of the funniest in awhile.
Absolutely! I'd listen to these sweet goofballs marathon a phone-book reading ;)
too bad Brad and Dave aren't there to make it even MORE fun.
While, true, it was not as memorable as 'Frozen', 'The Princess and the Frog' did have a GREAT villain .... ya gotta love the Shadow Man!
Any character voiced by Kieth David is more than okay in my book.
It's a very good looking and very ambitious, but I didn't really like it . Too much exposition and too sentimental.
I saw this last night and found this movie to be absolutely amazing. I mean, i can't understand how anyone can give this a negative review, this film is why we love movies. It is remarkable. It hits several of the themes of 2001, highly evolved unseen beings pulling the strings to assist humanity, places beyond the infinite where time is meaningless and past present and future collide, artificial intelligence (thankfully as crazy as HAL 9000). The only negatives about this movie are that Nolan still has too much dialogue in his movies. I am a firm believer in show, not tell. I was glued to the screen throughout and I understood what was going on at a basic level through his fantastic visuals. You don't need to stop the flow and try and explain the science to me, Kubrick didn't need to exposition dump he did the research and then just laid it out there for us to analyze with minimal dialogue. That being said, this is one of the most thought provoking films of the year. i loved the ending. it certainly is LOUD, and as i've heard others say, i couldn't understand what was being said over Zimmers score a few times. Didn't hurt the film for me, i'll be watching multiple times with subtitles once it is on blu-ray.
I didn't hate the movie at all, but it was a flawed diamond. The visuals were spectacular, it was a joy to watch, but the performances varied, and the music, while epic, also drowned out the dialogue in places making it hard to follow what was going on.
My kid really wants to see Big Hero Six, but will he have to see the first five Big Hero movies to understand what's going on?
Nah - it's secretly a Leonard Part Six remake, so the 'five' are just prequel bait.
It's nice to see the Brians and Jake happy for once. I know the angry reviews are funnier but it is nice to treat them to a good movie
I think the best of the movie is (spoiler::::::)
Plan A and B took place at the same time to initiate eachother, henceforth Murphy('s law)
Holy shit my sides oh dear god, the Vision talk.
Oh god that was amazing.
Jake should totally watch Coonskin. That movie is awesome.
I can't wait to see the "Dewey vs. Truman" movie.
This might sound suspect . . . but could we get goyim Irving at some point? If what he said pre-cut was that hilarious, truly I, at least, would be in stitches were he left intact XD
Also, the credits on the Brians/Jake review says:
with an extra N.
I've always called him the Cinnamon Snob.
Using the Cinnabon recipies? zero stars
I loved Big Hero 6, but when I went to see it the projector stopped in the middle of the credits, so I didn't get to see the Stan Lee cameo.
Heard they're casting Paul Bettany as the Vision..... I LOVE that idea; physically I think he's a perfect choice (sculpted cheekbones and all).
The Big Hero 6 review makes me woner - can an internet movie video review show jump the shark? - and apparently yes, yes it can.
And there I was, going through all these positive and enthusiastic comments, thinking to myself, "Isn't it about time for someone to write something assholish...?"
Ah. There we go.
You're right. Why am I such an asshole? Why can't I be positive and enthusiastic about a review that never even discusses the movie itself, and takes a good 3/4 of its running time to even mention anything about it? Damn me. I am such a killjoy.
Dude they did the same thing with Cap 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy, so this isn't something new. It's much easier to talk about a movie you hate than a movie you love, and obviously they really enjoyed this movie. Besides there are plenty of other critics having full in-depth review videos about Big Hero 6, so go watch them.
So your reply is "if you don't like it, go somewhere else"? What's the point in having comments if the only legitimate response is "omg i loved it lol"? You'd think I made some sort of death threat or called people Nazis. All I did was say I didn't like the review. In a snarky way, sure, but I think they can take it.
Also, I may be alone in this, but I (usually) don't watch midnight screenings to decide whether or not I should go see a movie. I watch them because I enjoy the discussion of the movie. After watching this review, I have no idea why they like the movie, who they would recommend it for, what they took away from the movie, or even what the movie is about. The entire discussion can be summed up in the thumbnail. To me, that's pretty self-indulgent and way different than the other reviews you mentioned.
Now you're playing the Victim Card, shocking.
All Claire did was offer a counter point to what you said. She didn't call you names, she wasn't rude to you, and she merely suggested that maybe you check out some other reviews that might be what you're looking for. You're making the vibe seem a lot more hostel than it is only so you can play the Victim Card, which is a sure fire way to lose the argument.
Plus Claire has a point, if you watch the Midnight Screenings so much, you'd know that this is hardly the first time there's been an episode like the Big Hero 6 one. Guardians of the Galaxy was definitely like this, so was Captain America 2, and a lot of the AMC re-release episodes. Compared to the 100s of episodes this show has, I'm sure in the end you can live with a select few episodes being very tangent heavy.
For those keeping score, Big_No_No is allowed to trash talk, but no one is allowed to trash talk him. Now we're all caught up.
It's OK to trash talk me, as long as you're talking to the point. Telling someone who has a criticism of a review to go read / watch some other review is pointless. I know there's other reviews. That's not a counter-point; it's a cop-out.
And again on this tangents straw-man: I enjoy the tangents when they supplement a review, which like I said, is what they did in those other reviews. Here there was nothing but tangents. If you like that, that's awesome for you. I don't.
Because your original comment was SO classy and to the point. In fact, by your same logic, your original comment didn't give any serious reasons why you didn't like the video, your comment was just all snark. If you're going to do that fine, but grow some skin and don't play the Victim Card if people bite back.
And the reason people are bringing up the other videos is because you say this episode has "jumped the shark," even though there have been several examples in the past of videos just like this.
I listened to the video, and I understand exactly why they liked it. They thought it was a charming, funny movie, and they even described the characters that they liked, and the moments they thought were very funny and quotable. They even talked about it's place within other Marvel movies.
If you take out the tangents, it would come across as simple to the point review, much like short reviews you see online. Only in this instance there's a lot of tangents involved, but this is hardly the first time that that's happened. Guardians of the Galaxy was mostly tangent.
Come on guys, let's not fight.
Let's hug it out.
Awww come on Brad, you're not gonna make another statement about sucking Nolan's dick like you did with TDKR & MOS now that you actually loved Interstellar....BOOO!!! ZERO STARS
All kidding aside, this movie was really enjoyable, especially after the borefest that was TDKR.
Hmmm...new charity drive idea! Jake watches Afro Circus! Every $1000 is another hour added to the total run time!
I enjoyed everything Nolan does, so yeah, I did enjoyed this movie despite the overuse of technobabble! Personally, I prefer Inception and The Dark Knight Trilogy!
Also being a Jim Carrey fan, of course I'll be there opening night for Dumb & Dumber To. I do have nothing but good feelings about this one. I'm sure it'll feel like the original and at the same time, being a standard comedy film with Carrey and Daniels taking over!
Speaking of Live and Let Die, RIP Gefforey Holder!
I thought I'd give my point of view, as an Astrophysics graduate student.
I was REALLY looking forward to this movie. Based on the trailers and the film clips, this looked like a movie that was going to be a portrayal of the importance of science and discovery - a movie that would make people seriously ask themselves "why aren't we spending money on space exploration" and "shouldn't we have colonized Mars by now"? It would show the emotions that the first explorers of deep space would experience. And it would do it all in a realistic manner (there were featurettes where they were bragging about how they got Kip Thorne to work on the exact black hole visualization). This is how the film was positioning itself, and I (and the 15 people from my department that I saw it with in IMAX) went into the theater with these high hopes.
The first half made me hopeful - this was the exact movie that I wanted to see. However, when it got to the notions of "love as a fundamental force of nature" around the midway point, it felt like serious whiplash, and the movie just kept on going in this completely different direction. The visuals were still there, but the movie almost completely lost interest in the "spirit of science and exploration" that was there at the start.
I want to stress that I was NOT expecting an emotionless documentary about what "realistic space colonization" would look like. I was expecting a story about real, brave, smart people saving the world with their smarts and bravery, embarking into the vast unknown of space. I wanted to see how they would face these challenges, and I wanted to see the emotions that they would experience along the way. That's an extremely powerful story, when you think about it. But no, apparently that wasn't enough, we needed to get all metaphysical and have love literally transcend time and space.
Again, this might just be me just setting WAAAY too high expectations for a movie, but frankly, I feel cheated. Huge disappointment.
You complain about it being emotionless, yet then complain about it being about love? And if you were left emotionless during the sequence of McConaughey watching the videos of his children, and the finale with his daughter, then dude, I'm sorry for you.
Nono, those parts were GREAT. That's EXACTLY what I wanted from it. My problem is with what happened directly after the video scene - with Hathaway suggesting that they go to the other planet "because love is telling her to", and then in the end it turns out that she was right. That's a pretty big difference. One is treating love as a human emotion, the other is treating it as something like quantum entanglement.
@Alexander That's not exactly making me want to not see the movie, in fact, it makes it sound pretty cool!
Too much cynicism in this world.
Exactly. It reminded me of the Abyss. Looks fantastic, great build up and then a sub-Spielberg mawkish ending.
It wasn't nearly as good as Contact.
I work at a theater with an IMAX, I am so looking forward to going to see interstellar even after your review(i'm not big on spoilers as my friend says 'My mind can go back and forth in time without breaking") that and often times i forget all the big stuff after a while
I just finished a shift and I can tell you right now Brad that this sold out one time in IMAX i think the only other times i've seen that happen were The Avengers, Hunger Games, and now Interstellar
I noticed in a lot of Irving's reviews that some of his offensive tangents are cut out a little bit. (Like this episode, some of his Black People and Jazz bit is cut out). Brad, I will pay top dollar if you ever release a DVD with all of Irving's reviews uncut and uncensored. The world needs to take in all of his unfiltered, no holds barred glory. You can even call it "The Best of Nazi Sympathizer Irving"
The Madagascan green pigeon (Treron australis) is a species of bird in the Columbidae family. It is found in Madagascar, Comoros, and Mayotte. The taxon griveaudi, by most authorities considered a subspecies of the Madagascan green pigeon, is sometimes considered a separate species, the Comoros green pigeon (Treron comorensis). Its natural habitats are subtropical or tropical dry forests and subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests.
if you're gonna cut out a part of the black folk speech, why not cut out the whole damn thing?
the shinto gates, and all the japanese stuff all over san Francisco just made me think Japan took it over in the future.
so in the future, Japan bought the United States.
About the critics; nowadays, the only critique I can respect stems from this very website. You guys are entertaining, use logic in your reviews while not resorting to emotional appeals and are able to admit both positives and negatives whether or not you like the movie. Thank you for that.
Hi, I'm Jake, this is my brother Brian, and this is my other brother Brian.
Hell yeah it's Irving!
"Mastah" Brian, the Nazi Sympathizer, and the White Uncle Ruckus in a review together
this going to be good
Interstellar definitely had the look and feel of a $150 million flick, but for me it just didn't quite reach the ambitious levels it was trying to get to.
First of all, zero points for originality. It's just too much like so many other space films. When they go through the wormhole? 2001. When they plan to slingshot around a planet? Apollo 13. Anne Hathaway's entire persona? Sandra Bullock from Gravity. They have the exact same fucking haircut! I get that an original movie is hard to come by these days, it's probably not fair for me to criticize that. But at least spare me the same old schtick like "grizzled hero has to save the world but also has to get home to his daughter" from Armageddon.
It's also actually a highly predictable movie. You mentioned that scene where McConaughey reunites with his old daughter being powerfully emotional. Can't say I disagree on that point. My problem though was that I saw it coming a zillion miles away. Literally, the second they started talking about 1 hour = 7 years, I immediately said to myself he's gonna reunite with 80 year old Murph. If this movie were darker or had a different director, I suppose I wouldn't be able to predict that. But this is Nolan, his sentimentality is actually almost Spielbergian. Dom Cobb got to reunite with his kids, Bruce Wayne got to survive a nuclear explosion (which still pisses me off to this day, did he have Indy's refrigerator on board?). So of course McConaughey is gonna reunite with his old daughter. That's just one example.
It's also just full of stupid stuff that's hard to forgive even in a "turn your brain off" way. I mean, Gargantua? Really? Is it full of Unobtainium and people named Cypher Raige? Also, how the hell do you build an entire space shuttle but not have a pilot until he literally happens upon your base? And why was that shuttle right next to the conference room? I know, "science." But I can't be the only one who laughed when they said they were NASA and then Michael Caine proved it by pressing a button and boom, the wall opens to a spaceship. What is this, Price is Right?
Anyway...yeah, I didn't care too much about this movie. Don't get me wrong though, it's not that bad honestly. True, you're going to have those who can get behind it and those who have a lot of reasons why it sucks. Count me as middle, leaning latter because there are a lot of reasons. But I can't say it really "sucks," just that it has sucky moments. It'll still get Oscars for sound and visuals, maybe music (though what was up with all the organ music?). But as far as Nolan films go, I doubt this one will be remembered as much as Dark Knight or Inception (one of my personal favorite movies ever by the way). I just hope Nolan fanboys don't lose their minds over criticism the way many did with Man of Steel. For what it's worth, I thought Interstellar was totally better than MoS =p
How is Man of Steel a Nolan movie? He co-wrote & produced but it's a Zack Snyder film.
Oh wait, most of the criticisms for MoS WAS the writing, other than property damage complaining, which by the way "Avengers" & GotG had plenty of yet no one said boo. So yeah, maybe his highness should stick to directing.
I'm obviously no fan of Sir Nolan but Inception is awesome. Although as good as the movie is, honestly I was more impressed with the cast. . .
minus Ellen Page (I 'm not homophobic I just don't care for her).
Avengers and GotG didn't have characters flying other characters into gas stations and buildings and blowing them up with people inside. Avengers and GotG also didn't have a romantic kiss in front of a smoldering crater that used to be a city. Avengers and GotG also had characters trying to contain the damage and move it away from doing people harm. Man of Steel had it's hero using buildings and vehicles as baseballs bats, causing just as much damage and death as its villain.
the difference between the damage done in the avengers, and man of steel, isn't that it is being done in a different movie.
but because of WHO it is being done by.
ps; if you have to say "i'm not a homo" for something, in order to say you do not like or you like a person before it, then chances are, you are a homophobic.
Thor shoots lightning at the descending worm/millipede ship/creature thing & it falls straight down on 2 or 3 buildings. That's the biggest example I remember, but to watch that whole end battle & assume nobody dies or is hurt is asinine. Now, here we go again, I didn't think about any pedestrians getting hurt because I was a tad busy watching the action in a comic book movie & I'm sorry if I sound like a "mindless Transformers/Michael Bay' fan & all I want is mindless action. I don't always, I love old movies where there's NO action (Cape Fear, Kiss of Death, Psycho, etc. . . ) however when it comes to comic book flicks, well, is it bad to ask for some action or not be bored out of my not-red skull?
But if I'm to be labeled as such by you or anybody then so be it.
But again, "MoS" is not a Nolan movie it's Zack. . . oh no. I just had a sickening thought.
Ok Nick, thanks for the reply. Have a good day!
Oh is that so, ID0?
Well, I'm sorry for not knowing the rules or sayings when talking about the gay community but if you believe me to be homophobic then that's on you, sir.
But for the record I have "nothing against homosexuals", nor do I "hate those types" or however you're supposed to say it. OK?
again; the difference is who is doing it.
Thor is an ignorant bastard who doesn't give a shit. it's just the character he is.
Let's not forget that at the end of the Avengers there was a whole news montage of the aftermath, with the civilians setting up mini memorials for people that might have lost their lives, and politicians saying that it was the Avengers' fault and that they should pay for the damage.
I didn't like Man of Steel partly because of how poorly written its "hero" was in regards to destroying half a city = I must now dislike every movie with property damage despite context, character and writing.
The Avengers doesn't have a scene where Iron Man flies someone into a working gas station, thus blowing up, with no regard for how many people he just killed. Man of Steel does this. The Avengers actually shows the consequences of its battle, with its heroes trying to contain the damage to a central location as much as possible. Superman destroys half of a city, and one of the survivors says "Superman, you saved us," while he kisses someone in front of a destroyed city.
And while Thor may have acted like a dumb brute in the one scene you mentioned, Man of Steel's entire last act is made of it's hero destroying shit, which is completely against this character and was only done to show shit blowing up real good.
Also The Avengers had something called characters. Man of Steel had prototypes.
Considering how this is a very vey VERY common criticism towards Man of Steel, there's definitely something that could have been done or tweaked about that movie's script that wasn't a problem in other Superhero films, and it isn't just something "a couple commenters" are criticizing.
Good lord, what have I done? Times like these, I think maybe I shouldn't chase pipe dreams of becoming a movie critic =p
Oh my god, is it too much to ask movie cynics to feel something every once in a while.
I'm in the camp of "saw it, next" when it comes to Interstellar. It wasn't terrible or anything, but I just didn't much care for the characters, the sentimental stuff was filled with typical Hollywood clichés, and a lot of the movie seemed to be cobbled together from a bunch of different movies and series I've seen over the years.
Some good effects, though, and I too liked the robot, but unlike Inception that threw a whole bunch of stuff at you a mile a minute so that you didn't have time to digest the information (even if a lot of it was largely irrelevant to the plot itself), this was a very streamlined, easy to follow flick. But certainly I wasn't all that on the edge of my seat outside of perhaps the escape from Gargantua, and even almost fell asleep at one point.
Though I suppose part of the reason is that I'm not a big Nolan fan anyway, with Inception being the only movie he's made thus far I'd say comes near something remarkable, so ultimately I just felt a lot of what happens in this film just didn't justify the great secrecy that has fuelled the marketing machine of this movie of "not telling even the basics of the plot." I went in completely cold, not knowing really what to expect, and came out feeling more "meh" than anything else.
Anyway, at least I've seen it and I don't regret doing so. But I don't see myself spending much time thinking this movie over as I don't think there was much left for me to wonder about in the end and I don't feel like ever needing to revisit this one again either. 3/5 is probably what I'd give this. It wants to be ambitious, but doesn't really reach that goal all the way through.
Take a shot every time they take a tangent in the Big Hero 6 review!
I saw it in HD. My theater's showings for SD ended at 4, and my family and I usually attend prime time showings. It looked awesome, but if the other one was the 30mm version, I kinda wish I coulda seen that to compare.
Also, my family hated it, but I though it was amazing, as well. Totally dug the emotional and sci-fi aspects of that story. Glad you guys enjoyed it, as well!
I really wanted to like Interstellar but I was able to guess that the bookshelf ghost thing was really McConaughey in the future traveling across space-time from the start as a result I wasn't able to go along for the ride like you guys. The movie became predictable and started to fall into place for me right after.
Glad you guys enjoyed it, though.
i just...like it wasnt hard sci fi if it contains supernatural elements like messing around with the past or spinning monolith robots. I really wanted a realistic take on how space travel to find a new home would actually be like
I didn't want to watch the Big Hero 6 review before I saw the movie because I didn't want any spoilers. Turns out I didn't even need to worry about that...
Funnybot sounds a bit like Holly from Red Dwarf :D
I have not seen Interstellar, but I already know it is not for me. I just can not stand Nolan's movies. At all.
My issue with Nolan is that everything is great and pretty....until any character opens their mouth.
The man does not write dialog, he writes exposition. Every single character monologues for five times longer than they need to to get their point across. That makes a 2 hour movie into a 3 hour movie.
And then, because everyone is talking about their actions instead of actually doing the actions, you wind up with characters that say they changed/evolved from the start of the movie, but at no point do they ever show it.
Nolan is a very "tell, don't show" writer. The only difference is, he knows a lot about linguistics that he can somewhat get away with it. He can make a really dumb paragraph sound very smart.
And I find that to be true of every single movie he made except the Prestige...and that was based off a novel so he didn't really get a chance to screw up the dialog.
And almost all his characters sound the same. Cover up the names and just read the dialog, and everyone has the exact same speaking patterns. You can't tell who says what. Batman speaks exactly like Catwoman, who speaks exactly like Bane, who speaks exactly like Alfred. Every single character just boiled down to "I'm making a political statement. Info dumb. Exposition. Repeat the point of this paragraph in case you forgot. Snappy one liner at the end that the audience will remember." This was especially obvious in Man of Steel.
Now, compare that to Firefly. I know, Whedon has his own common traits that grate on some people, but there is no way you would confuse Simon's dialog with Jane's. There is no way you'll confuse Wash with Kaylee. There is no way you'll confuse Preacher Book with River. Every single character has a completely different sentence structure, syllable count, and pattern.
I know this is a very long post when I am chastising someone for going on too long, but I don't care.
My point is Nolan is a very good director, but horrible at writing dialog.
edit: Info dump, not info dumb. And "is talking" is passive voice. I should have used "talks."
I'm sure there are likely a few more grammar issues in that post as well. Any chance of getting an edit button?
Passive voice is perfectly acceptable when stating a general truth.
Stop reviewing movies you haven't seen, Josh Hadley
I did not review Interstellar. I listed my reasons, based on prior Nolan movies, why I do not want to see it.
Yeah, if I were Bruce Wayne I think I'd rather Alfred just give me tidbits of advice, patch me up & helping out on a case every now & then as opposed to telling me long, drawn out stories that somehow relate to the villain in question, or talk like Mickey from "Rocky 3" when confronting a bigger adversary.
Damn it, Alfred, I don't have time for your folk tales, Gotham needs me!
Two fantastic movies out this weekend, but I have very little money. Which movie should I watch in theatres, and which should I wait till pirated review copies are available online for me to stream?
So from the synopsis I read on Wikipedia and what you gave me, this is what I thought it was, Proto - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Can't wait for the sequel when everyone is being eaten by Mindworms.
Actually, funny thing about Interstellar and scientific accuracy that came about from production according to the Wiki page and the article it was citing:
"In creating the wormhole and a supermassive rotating black hole, which as opposed to a non-rotating black hole possesses an ergosphere, Dr. Thorne collaborated with visual effect supervisor Paul Franklin and a team of 30 computer effects artists at Double Negative. Thorne would provide pages of deeply sourced theoretical equations to the artists, who then wrote new CGI rendering software based on these equations to create accurate computer simulations of the gravitational lensing caused by these phenomena. Some individual frames took up to 100 hours to render, and ultimately resulted in 800 terabytes of data. The resulting visual effect provided Dr. Thorne with new insight into the effects of gravitational lensing and accretion disks surrounding black holes, and will lead to the creation of two scientific papers; one for the astrophysics community and one for the computer graphics community"
THAT IS FUCKING AWESOME (also, apparently the ONLY implausible thing the consultant cited was the ice clouds). Just got out of seeing it and I must say, I found it amazing. Nolan is pretty much the new golden boy of cinema and has yet to let me down. Really looking forward to whatever he may do next.
The Cinema Snob should review now Gary Nelson's The Black Hole, one of Christopher Nolan's guilty pleasures.
I still can't view the videos. Is there still something going on with Blip? I am a big fan of Brad's reviews of new movies.
Try a different browser?
Seems to work fine.
*SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS*
I thought it was quite similar to Sunshine, but it's entirely possible they were both inspired by the same material, rather than interstellar aping it.
Sunshine is very similar in that it's also a very important mission to save humanity that keeps getting into trouble, both from outside and inside, ending in self sacrifice.
I am also very glad TARS and CASE(especially CASE. I like CASE a lot) turned out to be more GERTY than HAL.
I wish I liked this movie more than I did. I thought the dialogue was brutal (That EUREKA! line in particular was godawful, along with 'Love is the bridge that transcends time and space'). On top of that I actually had trouble hearing some of the dialogue, namely Michael Caine's 'confession' scene. Part of it was that the actors were mumbling too much at times, and part of it would be when the score overwhelmed some of the line delivery. Dunno how many other people had that issue, but me and the friends I went with all kinda looked at each other wondering WTF Michael Caine said to Jessica Chastain.
I also had a tough time with the film's pacing. Once they cross the wormhole it kicks into a higher gear, but before then I was really zoning out. The acting from McConaughey and young Murph were really the only things keeping me interested (on that note, I love how McConaughey seemed unable to find any fucks to give about his son by the end of the film-- even if his son kinda turned into a douche).
Still, overall I did like the movie more than I hated it. The visuals were breathtaking, the score mesmerizing (made me think of Ennio Morricone) and even though I kinda called the two big twists in the movie, I was down with it because the acting across the board was just gripping even when the dialogue threatened to drag things down. The docking sequence was by far the most gripping moment I've seen in a film this year. I did end up wishing that the movie went on another ten minutes or so to show what happens after that final shot, but overall, I left the theater on a high note-- just not on the level you guys did. Still, I'm glad you guys loved it as much as you did.
The main problem with interstellar can be summed up in one word. HAIR! Claims for the scientific accuracy of this film are all very well and good, but they went on this huge epic journey and no ones hair grew or even really fell out of place! How the fuck can you take the quantum stuff seriously in a film that can't even depict scientifically accurate hair.
THE HAIR WAS SCIENTIFICALLY INACCURATE!!!
FYI: My Comment is full of spoilers.
Dave, Interstellar, I am glad you found a movie to connect with but you are kind of condescending to people that might not like it. It had plenty of problems. Anne Hathaway's character 1st decision sets them back 23 years and kills a member of the crew, next she wants to see Dr. Mann who is crazy and tries to kill them all. In the end Murph, on her death bed, finally sees her dad who saved the entire world.and says go away I want talk to my kids.
You can say you liked it, and even be stupid over the top about it, like I will watch this 3 times in a row, I wish this was 6 hours, I wish it was twelve hours I would pee in my cup, but don't tell people they are stupid for not liking it.
It had plenty of problems I recommend you check out the review from "What the Flick" on You_Tube.
No, she said that parents aren't supposed to see their kids die.
So, characters in the movie shouldn't have made any mistakes?
"Man of Steel" is no masterpiece & admittedly has plenty of flaws, as well as things that flat out piss me off. But for what it is I think it's pretty good. Thank you, Mr. Brad2!
There's not a single point in this video where either Dave or I say that people are stupid for not liking it.
You explicitly started the video out by saying that the people who dislike this movie are the sorts of people who can't let a movie take them away, who nitpick things to death, and don't understand what it is to enjoy things. You'll forgive us if some people define that a bit negatively.
I thought the movie, while high-concept and gorgeous in visuals and soundtrack, was saddled with terrible plotting, narrative holes the size of Saturn, a total lack of internal consistency, and large maddening sections where I was waiting for the characters to catch up with the audience. And claiming that the only reason I disliked this film is because I'm a cynical nitpicker who hates joy is like me claiming the only reason you did like it is because you're a small-minded idiot with low standards.
I can see why someone would love Interstellar. If you can't see why someone wouldn't, then the problem isn't with us.
There's nothing wrong with loving Interstellar or dismissing people who don't as joyless cynics on your own site.
But I think part of the problem with Interstellar is that it was built up and up by Nolan fans to be more than it is. I initially disliked it, but when I sat back I think I was being a little churlish about a film that looks great and is a least trying to do something a little more interesting than the umpteenth superhero reboot. Is it flawless, no. But then again ended up liking The Box because it also had ambitions and looked great.
To me Nolan is a good director who needs better writers. In truth he's more of a David Lean than a Kubrick. There are always elegant shots and an eye for epic themes, but his films are not playful or satirical in the way Kubrick's always were.
Actually, they said, explicitly, that they are the sort of people who WON'T let a movie take them away. Not "can't". And certainly not the other stuff. And that doesn't always mean a bad thing. Would you want to be taken away by a movie like "Looney Tunes: Back in Action"?
I kind of agree with Brad and Dave. But I think that this is a movie where you need to have a high enough suspension of disbelief to like. And I'm not saying that you can't suspend your disbelief. I'm saying this is a movie that has a very high threshold for suspension of disbelief. Cause it is rather silly.
I said that a movie like this, like MOST hard sci-fi, is going to be dismissed by a lot of people who are going to come up with 100 reasons why it doesn't make sense. How is that me saying "people who don't like this are stupid"? I said that there's going to be two camps on this movie, which to be honest, there kinda are.
And it's also true that people who typically nitpick things to death are most likely not going to like this film, that doesn't mean that "everyone who dislikes this movie only nipticked it to death!" There's a lot of reasons why someone might not like this movie, whether it's not liking the characters, or thinking the movie is boring, or thinking the movie is predictable. I was specifically just talking about a certain sect of movie goer.
He said that he didn't care whether people liked it or not because he himself liked it. It doesn't mean he's dismissing the fact that it has problems. He's dismissing the problems because he liked the movie.
Fair enough, Brad. You're certainly right that there will be two camps about this movie, and I would never begrudge someone who liked a movie, especially a high-concept sci-fi film, even if it's one I really didn't go for. If I misinterpreted what you guys were saying, I apologize.
Actually, I'm under the suspicion that Brad earns more money the more we comment. So if we keep arguing about the movie, we can continue supporting them.
Brad is totally a racist in this video. He totally said so in the video.
I wondered whether this would be another Dark Knight Rises before I saw the Interstellar review, but based on some of the comments here it sounds more like a Prometheus review, though nowhere near as extreme as that was.
I know its probably a little late, but maybe you can find it - I would love to see you guys giving your thoughts on Pride. That movie was amazing.
I'm curious exactly how cold it gets for those guys during winter. I'm in northern Canada, midnight reviews would be impossible up here. It's -16c/3f outside right now and winter has only just started. How cold does Springfield get?
Well it's coming up on midnight now their time and it's -6c...
I was more or less on board with most of the science in Interstellar. It was close enough to accurate that I could accept it.
It *really* lost me in the last 15 minutes but it did pretty well since most sci-fi blockbusters lose me in the *first* 15.
The return of slaver Irving!
I honestly love the good movie reviews cause it's just a couple of bros laughing and having a good time! Bulletproof cat!! hahaha
The best parts of interstellar are right before Conny ends up in the black hole. It felt a little meh how nicely the movie tied itself up at that point. I found the space odyssey much more interesting than when it turned into spaceception territory.
Ahhhh, the internet. Where everyone in every comments section everywhere who just want to nit-pick this movie apparently all work for NASA and/or are MENSA level PhDs who study astro and quantum physics.
"Uh, yeah, that bit about worm holes and black holes? Doesn't make sense. They don't work like that... even though we really have no idea how they work, but, you know, I'm right 1/10."
People need to chill. It's a movie, not a documentary. I loved that movie and I had to spend half the time explaining to my group of mates what was happening in it.
"A planet one hour on which equals 7 years on Terra"?
Um...I'm not afraid to crack your balls, Interstellar, but...Farscape did it first, lol.
I really loved Big Hero 6, a lot of heart with great writing and characterization to say nothing of the stellar animation, full written review here: http://fronttowardsgamer.com/2014/11/12/big-hero-6-review-moviecomics/
I'm a little late to the party but I just caught Interstellar. Movie is good, and that's about it. It would be great, but it was a little too over-dramatic and emotionally exploitative. Does everything in this movie have to be a near-miss? It seems like for every little thing that happened in the movie - those things happen in the most dramatic timing possible. McConaughey finds the rocket right before it takes off, they find him floating in space minutes before his oxygen ran out, etc. - there's just way too much of that stuff. The movie really makes zero attempt at verisimilitude, which is unfortunate considering we're watching a movie that's supposed to have some root in reality, but instead it feels like a damn cartoon.
"People who criticise a movie I like are blah-blah-blah and have no herp-derp-derp...". Nice assumptions, Max Douche.
I loved Interstellar. It made me think, and actually, reinterpret what actually happened in the end (and before the movie started). Maybe my interpretation would be too farfetched, but I didn't take the storytelling exactly as it happened (as in the ending of Inception, it's not clear for me, what happened in the end) derived 2 messages from the movie:
1) Don't ruin your home, it might be impossible to fix it;
2) (And this is a bit depreccing, but could have happened) - it was impossible to fix it. Mathew actually died in the black hole (at least in our perception of death), this was all his afterlife (hence the ghost, "they" references). But it is not to say that he seased to exist. He woke up in...umm... heaven?
So, yep, just a reflection. But the movie was great.
You guys are definitely right about just going along with whatever the movie says if you like it or getting completely annoyed because of how wrong things are if you hate it with a movie like Interstellar.
It's funny you guys mentioned Elysium because that is actually one movie I absolutely hate because I was pointing out every single plot hole I noticed for days. Meanwhile movies like Pacific Rim, Prometheus, and Interstellar are movies that I can just watch and be perfectly fine with except for the occasional (Uh that doesn't work that way).
For me it really just depends on how invested I am in the story and characters. All the movies I can watch with out any problems that managed to win me over, and Elysium just... did not (It didn't help that my favorite character was killed off really early into the movie).
its not that it was a bad movie, i just didnt expect the kind of movie i ended up seeing in the end. i liked it a lot but its not the movie i expected or truly wanted to see
Seeing Interstellar in it's native format - 70mm live on an IMAX screen is life changing experience. This explains the diffence between the six different formats it is avaliable in.
6 minutes into the video: GET ON WITH IT!
Big Hero 6 was garbage, just completely cliched crapfest of a film.
Interstellar was a movie I left the theater feeling positive about, sure I felt the beginning was a little slow and all but after everyone bitches and moans that the science is wrong in it and then watching the scientists they had as consultants explaining the science I am not seeing the problem, and in fact will say I now consider it a great movie.
Just because you saw NDT say something is crap or not consistent, blah blah blah doesn't mean that it is, what are his scientific breakthroughs and accomplishments other than being great at explaining things and being charismatic ? He's the guy who said Star Wars wasn't realistic and that the USS Enterprise C was more realistic than the Millennium Falcon. DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH