rate this film from 1-10
3
threehunnit
7 could have been better if it wasnt for the muh love crap
7
>>68602507
8.5
1 point for hathaways love speech
.5 point for having him not die at the end.
8
Legit question
1)Are the visuals kino or is it just muh CGI everywhere
2)Does McConnaughey get all super comfy with his acting or is he mostly just a co-star as opposed to the main?
4. Some cool visuals, and gets points for the scope of what it attempted to be, but loses heavily with the contrived and often contradictory dustbowl stuff, the way too heavy-handed forced emotional scenes, the unnecessary and shoehorned conflict with Dr Hugh Mann, and the loose overall plot.
7/30
>>68602709
Very good visuals. Lot of practical shots.
McConnaughey is the star. Though Mackenzie Foy steals a few scenes while on earth.
Soundtrack is GOAT, but might be mixed a little too loud.
Nice
>>68602940
ogre
>>68602507
5
*and I'm being generous
>>68602709
not having seen interstellar is like going to /mu/ and not having heard yeezus
2
7.5
>>68602677
So if she shit her cunt mouth and he ate it, to you, it would be a masterpiece. The best a film can ever be?
I don't even know you but I don't respect you.
>>68603275
No, then I would knock off a point for the sound mixing or something.
Think of it as concurrent sentencing. If you did two things wrong, and one you serve six months, and the other is a year and a half, you generally serve the year and a half. Not two years.
It is the 2nd or 3rd best nolan film, and he generally makes good ones.
>>68602978
fag
film of the decade/10
6
probably like a 4 without hans zimmers best score in years. the movie is a fucking mess.
>mfw the plebs in this thread would probably give capeshit movies higher scores than what they're giving this
>>68603385
Nolan is pedestrian
7 is the correct answer. It was a good film that could have been better.
/thread
I've never seen this. What was with the Kimmy Schmidt joke about how shitty this movie is?
>And I'm not a quitter, I sat all the way through Intersteller
Inb4 some shit about women
6
5
>>68603604
>implying Nolanshit is in a different league from capeshit
Just because Nolan tries very desperately to insert intelligence into his movies, doesn't make his movies intelligent.
>>68604034
>I don't udderstand any of his movies, ergo they're pretentious and not smart
>>68602507
7.7
>>68602507
solid 7.5
would have been an 11 but the love speech drops it to a 0
>>68602507
Anything Nolan directs is automatically at least a 7/10.
I saw that movie and liked it but I didn't think it was that special, maybe because I'm not interested in the genre (Gravity is boring btw), so 7/10.
10/10
One of my favorite movies, saw it multiple times in the theater because it's a hell of an experience.
Unlike some people I also don't get triggered when a movie has love is a part of a movie's theme.
8.5
>>68604034
this
even capeshit aren't this kind of shit
>>68602507
7/10.
Anyone who disagrees is either a troll or an edgelord contrairian
2.1
>>68607763
this is what nolanfags always think, thanks for posting
>>68602507
If you're into:
low-key sci-fi
practical effects
GOAT soundtrack(Hans is normally okay, but not joking 10/10)
Black holes
scientifically sound physics
Then it's a 9/10
points off if you don't like Nolan or the actors
dialogue can be alittle cheesy and Hathaways character is sometimes retarded
>look up relativistic time dilation
>it's actually real
>>68602507
6/10
The third act fucked everything up.
Incredible visuals and soundtrack, I went to watch it for the first time in Melbourne's IMAX which is like the third largest screen in the world, so if I were ranking this on the experience I'd give it a 10/10.
The whole love thing relating in anyway to gravity during the third act is stupid, and was a let down which brings the movie from like an 7-8 down to a 6.
6
>>68602507
Using the tesseract I rate it both a 1 and a 10 at the same time.
>>68608386
This.I went to see it four times in the IMAX because it was the last movie shot on 70 mm
>>68602507
7/10.
Coop was endearing. That's the most important thing.
>>68603008
Yeezus isn't really that big on /mu/ anymore. It's always been MBDTF that's the popular one.
4, weak writing as always with Nolan.
I don't understand why you guys get so up in arms about the whole love thing. Corny yeah, but it's not like she was saying a literal measurable force of love.
>>68602507
3
Thanks for the robots and the cool space water CGI but the rest was shit.
>>68603008
More like itaots
8
>>68610093
This. Love never actually "fixes" anything. It's just the force that keeps you going and that's just something you can't debate. It's shown time and time again in films. Just a few minutes ago I finished Prisoners which is the same. Loves keep you going, even to torture a mentally retarded kid.
But /tv/ will never know what love is so it's impossible to discuss something as simple.
9.3 for me. Ending (last 15 min.) felt super rushed.
>>68602507
8/10
god-tier dialogue, noble lie vs lie from comfort theme ala science isn't objectively true.
>>68609588
DELETE THIS!!!
10
7
>>68610639
this
>>68602507
6.5 or 7
love ruined it
4
>>68602507
5.
Good visuals, idiotic story.
0
>>68607982
We even have practical proof that it's real, because before it was proved physically, a lot of people didn't believe it, including the people that designed GPS satellites, which caused major errors, because the time the GPS perceives and the time we perceive are actually slightly off (enough to fuck up the positioning)
Thats when physicists went full "I-told-you-so" and they calculated exactly how much the time dilation is, and then they re-adjusted the GPS' clocks to account for the time dilation, and it started to give accurate results
This thread should be enough proof on how diverse /tv/ is
Hate it when anons go "but /tv/ thinks this", "/tv/ hates this"
/tv/ aint one person, it isn't even one group
>>68604034
Nolan doesn't insert intelligence.
He inserts idiotic exposition so the average retard can understand what's going on.
>>68613759
If you cannot explain something in simple terms, then you do not understand the subject.
10
>>68603008
so not having seen interstellar is good then? I agree.
I saw it but it was shit. Like Kanye West.
I can't remmember the difference between gravity and interstellar.
I saw both and they both left the same impression on me: pseudo-artistic sci fi pile of shit.
Interstellar: a movie (certainly not a film) that uses the openeness and lack of realism of the sci fi genre to vaguely discuss modern ideas like parrallel universes and the quantic aspect of time.
Does it take any risk? no.
Does it make an imaginative effort? no.
What was it made for? money.
Will it be remmembered? no.
Any one rating this more than 4 is a pleb and does not belong on this board.
Interstellar confirmed the worth of Nolan: a forgettable, mediocre movie director, whose big budget works attract plebs like a lightbulb attracts flies.
2.5/10
saw it on a plane
forgettable/10
it's the most generic space movie i've ever seen
7/10
>>68616384
pleb
>>68602507
7. Nolan gets a bit heavy handed at times in response to the (legitimate) criticism that his past movies lack heart.
But other than that I thought the critics were a little unfair to Interstellar. Especially after TDKR, which is a really shoddily made movie, got almost unanimous praise.
7. 9 if they retained the original ending.
>>68614116
Nolan continually commits one of the cardinal sins of filmmaking.
He tells instead of showing. Inception is his worst offender. That movie has very little rewatchability because it's over 2 hours of solid exposition.
>>68616512
>>68616593
plebs
>>68616651
Explain why anon. I think 7 is a fair score. It's not a special movie but it has some great set pieces, a good score, good performances and I respect Nolan's ambition. And I usually don't like his work.
It's a solid 6.5
If you rate it less you're contrarian
If you rate it more you're a fanboy faggot
>>68616752
I agree with your score but don't say shit like this,
>If you rate it less you're contrarian
>If you rate it more you're a fanboy faggot
It kills threads and discussion.
>>68616813
people are so easily satisfied nowadays. It's like we live in the age of entertainement.
Gladiator is a solid 6.5
The Godfather is a solid 7.5
Interstellar is somewhere between 2 and 4.
Most movies are between 0 and 1
If you make a scale, don't be afraid to use it to the fullest. If you don't it makes no sense, just say: how do you rate this movie between 5 and 10?
>>68602507
I'd say it's a 8/10, definitely above average but not perfect. Nolan seems to be entering a habit where his movies need to explain themselves before anything can happen. Inception took a very long time to get started, interstellar spent the later 1/4 of the movie explaining the reasons he found the base. Besides this, movie is basically perfect.
>5 in theater
>4 otherwise
9
>>68617275
>>68617471
plebs
>>68617350
my man
9/10
Eight points for being a great movie, one point for being a great litmus test.
10
>>68618439
>>68618458
plebs
Nolan/10
2
TEN
>>68602507
I will give this movie a Strong 8 to Light 9
>tfw having a 9.5 GB 720p blu-ray encode on my hdd
I liked it enough to buy it. 7 or 8.
>>68607894
>scientifically sound physics
oboy
>>68622461
>>tfw having a 9.5 GB 720p blu-ray encode on my hdd
Sounds awful, commiserations.
>>68602507
Depends if you include the ending
since we're doing nolan too now it seems and it feels like this thread has been up for like a week and a half, here goes:
>the prestige (9/10)
>batman begins (7.5/10)
>memento (7.5/10)
>inception (7/10)
>the dark knight (7/10)
>insomnia (6.5/10)
>interstellar (6/10)
>the dark knight rises (4.5/10)
still haven't seen following. he has strengths, but also alarming weaknesses and he makes the same fucking mistakes constantly. he's not evolving. if anything he's getting worse. noticeably.
textbook example of a guy whos reach far exceeds his grasp. and he just uses exposition as a bridge to his underdeveloped ideas, while having no clue how to into dialogue. hes almost as bad as lucas in that regard.
i dont see how he'll ever live up to his potential. its cruelly ironic that his best work (imo) is a magic movie thats meta as fuck and serves as a metaphor for his filmmaking style. to be fair, that movie is brilliant and tightly wound, feels like the peak of his powers before he got out of control and kept trying to go too far in more than a few places.
>>68602507
7, love and anne hathaway squandered a good opportunity for kino
plus zimmer made the soundtrack too loud
>>68602507
6
looks really nice and has some nice themes and MM is great but nobody talks like human being
fuck nolan dialogue
>>68627728
I'm glad you added that. None of his movies have "natural" dialogue.
>>68602507
8/10 in IMAX
6/10 seeing it any other way
>>68602507
The one fucking thing I hate about Nolan films is the audio balancing. Dialogue is always too quiet in scenes. Its too low during scenes where there's important exposition or plot detailing. Pretty annoying considering Nolan films have concepts that are described through characters. I've noticed this in batman, inception, interstellar.
I think it was a great movie. I especially loved the world exploration and the dimensional portal that was a physical representation of time. I loved how time was cyclical in a sense that all the events that occurred happened because all events are predetermined and everything that will happen has already happened.
It's a movie that makes you think and it's not a reaction you normally get from movies anymore. So even if it was a little nonsensical it still took a science fiction premise and made it interesting and enjoyable to watch. Also,I really want to get Chastain pregnant so my kids have a chance of having a jawline
>>68610486
>god-tier dialogue
>>68625291
Since we know absolutely nothing about what the fuck happens inside a black hole, you can't say it is or isn't scientifically sound
>>68627659
This post, my friends, is what a true normie pleb looks like.
>>68628567
The thing is, you don't get to go inside a black hole and survive because you get destroyed by gravitational tidal forces before you cross the event horizon. But nice try tho.
>>68602507
10/10 a masterpeice
6/10
The effects and cinematography were great, as was the concept. The overall journey was executed well, but I was not emotionally connected to any of the characters, and the dialogue was poopy. Love trumps science was a silly message to have in a supposedly hard sci fi movie too. I really wanted it to be good. Christopher Nolan needs to stop writing dialogue. He can't do it.
8 or 9
>>68602507
*organ swell*
B R A V O Z I M M E R
>>68602507
0
and im completely serious
7 I guess. Could bump it up to an 8 if I was more into space and physics and didn't dislike the actors.
Is there a movie like interstellar but without the DUDE LOVE LMAO?
>>68628668
Did you not watch the movie?
>>68629123
Yep.
>>68629104
No, that's the point.
>>68629104
Moon is smaller and cosier
Sunshine is fucking amazing
Apollo 13 is great
Europa Report was good
then there's the older stuff with poor effects like Dune
It's a solid 8. I could talk shit about the dialogue or the acting, but it's Chris Nolan, so you know what you're getting into by now. I liked this one
10
Beautiful.
Great soundtrack.
Solid acting.
Good script.
Watch this with a good system, or immerse yourself and I swear tears will begin to swell up. It really does feel like you're in space.
>>68629598
>Good script.
Every person I have met that has said the visuals in interstellar were "amazing" or "the best they have ever seen" had not seen Gravity the year before.
>>68629869
The difference is Gravity was shit.
>>68607389
>10/10
Same, maybe love part wasn't great, but acting and visuals, and science behind this movie was just great. One of my favourites.
>>68630020
>science behind this movie was just great
>>68629869
Yeah but the visuals in Gravity were terrible, why would that even matter?
6
