I thought the movie was a triumph, so hearing some critics hated it is baffling.
I’m not sure why a lot of critics hated it, because the more reviews I read, the movie i encounter “i’m being vague to avoid spoilers.” So it ends up being “it sucked because take my word for it I can’t go into details”
in MovieBob’s write up at the escapist, he claims the movie ruined it’s emotional punch by over explaining. And yet I was emotionally punched multiple times by the movie, so i wildly disagree. I suspect the key difference here is : i have two kids. i think this movie will kick any parent in the balls.
* I also think critics aren’t giving Nolan enough credit for making his most heart warming and emotional movie yet. The Escapist podcast touched on the bleakness of his previous movies a little (each being mostly concerned with an emotionally crippled tough guy, IMO), but never swung around to giving Nolan props for how different the emotional landscape is in Interstellar.
It’s like they feel the emotional threads were leftovers from some unknowable Spielberg version – except Spielberg never even got into pre production on his version? wha? and you don’t want to give the nolan brothers props for either their great writing, or the entire job of directing? huh. PFFT.
* Anywho. let me barf out this explanation of the “love force” plot device in the movie, since people keep mistaking love as an “explanation” for any part of the movie that wasn’t explicitly explained. Interstellar wasn’t saying love is a basic element, or a mechanism for controlling wormholes. Rather it was making an excellent case for love being a motivator behind things we don’t understand (the actions of 5th dimensional beings for example).
The idea that Love might be tapping into a transcendent universal force is a really optimistic notion for cold intellectuals. It’s practically a religious argument (that if we agree that no one can fully understand the factors involved in X, then shouldn’t we also agree that maybe we aren’t fully understanding the influence of Love?). The machinations of 5th dimensional beings from the future – reaching back across time to help humanity save itself – is directly showing you a way that love could very well be influencing events across time and space.
But the movie isn’t saying love is the sole explanation of how mcConaughey enters (arguably) the black hole or how he interacts with his daughter’s room or how he travels back to our galaxy. The movie is pointing out the way that love may be involved as a motivating factor in how all the science is being used. Maybe love is a factor worth considering.
You weren’t supposed to throw up your hands when “love” was mentioned and stop paying attention to the science in the movie.
Having 5th dimensional beings, likely humans from the future, reach across time and space to help a dad reach across time to help his daughter – is 2 versions of the same message. This is a great scifi movie because it seeks to answer why as well as how. (and it suggests that connecting with, and helping, your offspring is another form of brave bold exploration)
i want to ramble on about how Matt Damon was carefully presented as the best and brightest of human scientists, but turning to him just led to disastrously visiting the wrong planet and wasting precious resources and getting into physical fighting (one of the only punch ups in the movie?) (And some critics say it was nonsense, wedged in to have a fight scene? but the whole point is how stupid the best and brightest scientist is acting).
… but i’m typing way too much.
It’s weird that critics get hung up on the idea that the movie explained too much, when so much more was really being left to the audience.
bonus : Kip Thorne notes how the movie doesn’t explain much of anything (thbbt) and he wrote a book for those seeking explanations instead of the emotional roller coaster of a movie.