Interstellar: like Star Trek – but dumber and more tiring

Please let the obliteration begin so we can all go home, writes Deborah Ross

8 November 2014

9:00 AM

8 November 2014

9:00 AM


12A, Nationwide

Christopher Nolan’s futuristic epic Interstellar isn’t a clever film, or even a dumb film with a clever film trying to get out. Instead, and no matter what the hype may say, this is a dumb film with an even dumber film trying to get out. Even the tag line, which is also the basic premise, is super-dumb. It goes: ‘Mankind was born on earth. It was never meant to die here.’ Who says? How can anyone know what nature’s intentions might be? What did it intend for dinosaurs, for example? The golden toad? The use of ‘mankind’, rather than ‘humankind’, is also telling, as this is very much in the tradition of the alpha-male American superhero who single-handedly saves us (ladies too!; thanks!) from being obliterated, whereas I generally wish he wouldn’t. ‘For God’s sake,’ I often found myself thinking during this film, ‘let the obliteration begin so we can all go home.’

It’s a story told traditionally, in three acts, with the first act being by far the best, if only because it is at least semi-coherent. It is set at some time in the near-future when an unnamed natural disaster has caused dust storms and crops to fail and it is clear: unless the human race gets out quick, then it’s all over. Our hero is Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a former pilot turned farmer, and single parent of two children who, through some hokey that is too complicated to go into here, and which I’m not sure I properly understood anyhow, is led to a secret Nasa compound headed by Michael Caine, playing Michael Caine. He wants Cooper to pilot a spacecraft through a wormhole to an unknown galaxy where humans may be able to live. Cooper is initially reluctant and has to be lured back into action, obviously. ‘You’re the best pilot we ever had,’ beseeches Michael Caine, while playing Michael Caine. Cooper is particularly close to his daughter, Murph, and the question asked is: do you leave your family to save humanity? This is asked urgently, with tears in eyes, even though, frankly, I have known people leave their families for quite a lot less.

Anne Hathaway and Matthew McConaughey

It’s up into space, where the cinematography is often beautiful, I admit, with shimmering balls of intergalactic stuff emerging from the black, and planets of crusted ice. Nolan (Memento, Inception, the Dark Knight trilogy) is on it, visually, but it is tiring after a while; it feels like Star Trek turned up to 11. Meanwhile, the score is so emphatic it often drowns dialogue, while the characters are risible. Needless to say, Cooper is joined on-board by a chippy robot, but also there is Anne Hathaway (as Dr Brand), whose character is one of those women characters that has been included so the film can say it has a woman character, job done, no need to actually write that character. So Dr Brand is virtually character-less. She is stoic, stoic, stoic until she reveals the true reason for joining the expedition, then she cries shivery, womanly tears as she burbles on about love being able to transcend science.

And the action? There is peril. There is docking and undocking. There is a surprise cameo from a Hollywood A-lister who may or may not be Matt Damon. (I would never tell.) And there is much talk of relativity, tidal gravity, quantum data, other dimensions. Was a fifth dimension benevolently offering us that wormhole? I could not make head or tail of it. I accept this may be my limitation, as science isn’t my strongest suit, but on the way out of the screening I attended I asked a fellow reviewer if he had understood the plot and he said: ‘No, but that didn’t matter.’ I have asked the same question of those who love Doctor Who, and they say the same, and the only way I can respond to this is in capitals, so here we are: ‘WELL, IT MATTERS TO ME!’ I did learn something about time, though. This, at nearly three hours, comes in at the same length as Mr Turner, but whereas that went in no time at all, this seemed to go on for ever. And a day.

It doesn’t have much emotional heft, either. The emotional through line is between Cooper and Murph (Jessica Chastain), who does not forgive her father for leaving for many years, and thereby provides cinema’s longest ever sulk. Their relationship, post-sulk, is syrupy and sentimental and about as believable as a fifth dimension offering us a wormhole. But, mostly, Interstellar is super-dull and super-annoying and super-dumb because it posits itself as a film of many big ideas when it doesn’t even possess a single decent one. The end of the earth will never be the end of us? Who says? Plus, it’s pretty clear that when it comes to ‘saving the human race’ what America has in mind is saving America. The world is about to end, but at no point does any of the rest of the world come into this. It’s like nowhere else exists, can you believe. So, ultimately, my best advice to you? Ignore the hype. Stay home.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • windowscanbreak .

    as for your final advise . none taken

  • Danny Johnson

    Don’t compare this to star trek.

    • Bill Kleinsturn

      No worries. The reviewer is retarded. Nobody takes it seriously.

      • 60MinutesBaby60

        I’m kinda retarded too I guess ‘cuz I thought her review represented my thoughts on this movie – too convoluted too long too cardboard cut-out characters. Jess Chastain tho ftw naturally.

      • Sean

        She is indeed

  • Marius

    Mostly, Deborah Ross is super-dull and super-annoying and super-dumb because she posits herself as a reviewer of many great opinions when she doesn’t even possess a single decent one.

    • Jose

      Wow, the pathetic Nolan fan boys are out in full force.

      • Marius

        Dude, relax. I’m not saying the film is perfect. I’m saying it is beyond moronic to actually claim this is a film without big ideas. It would be like saying Meryl Streep is the most sucky actress who ever lived.

        • cuspernicus

          the film sucked and the reviewer is spot on….

        • Just Listen

          Reviewer got it spot-on. I can even tell you the exact moment the movie turned horrible–when they re-docked with the blown up spaceship falling into a black holes orbit.

        • mickrussom

          its stupid because its all implausible trash and the fool jerk nolan nor his fanboys even know what a universal constructor is or the what the whole Fermi paradox was all about discussed many years ago with far more intelligence.

    • 60MinutesBaby60

      I kinda super-liked her take on the whole matter.

    • pigknickers .


  • I can’t believe this reviewer tries to make us believe there are no big ideas in this film. How about doing a pretty good job of showing all possible times at once, a plausible gravity generating spacecraft, identifying gravity as a possible linkage between quantum mechanics and relativity….not to mention the most amazing explanations of relativity itself and the effect that speed and gravity have on time and last but not least, a conscious will to want to be with his daughter fits perfectly with the quantum mechanics’ law that particles are stateless until observed by an observer. In the black hole he was able to manipulate things because he ‘focused’ time via his will or observation.

    Maybe resist buying a fashion mag next time and pickup a ‘Physics for Dummies’…at least before you try to review another ‘big ideas’ movie and completely miss the point…

    • Joe

      Yeah that’s all very impressive but you actually have to DRAMATISE those things into a narrative script, not just have cardboard characters spout exposition and trite dialogue variations of the overarching thesis of the film over and over and over and over.
      Chris Nolan can make things look pretty but he’s the most ham fisted, lead footed, tin eared script writer currently at work in Hollywood. He has no grasp or control, perhaps even understanding, of narrative cohesion and propulsion.
      Billy Wilder once said if you give the audience 2+2 and let them add it up to 4 that they’ll love you forver. With nolan’s films you’re just constantly being told “This is 4, This is 4, That is 4, This is 4” over and over.
      The science may be correct but the film making is atrocious.
      And I think that is what the film reviewer is reviewing.

      • Agreed that Nolan may not ‘nuance’ his characterisation but rereading the review I stand by my comments that the reviewer simple didn’t understand the science and in that vacuum, was quite scathing of everything else.

        There are so few films these days that attempt to tackle complex scientific concepts in an entertaining way. This one does and does it quite well. That scientific complexity of concept is core to this movie and went completely over the head of this reviewer. Maybe Nolan spelling out the characters is serendipitous in a way as it leaves room for people to think about the bigger ideas that weren’t given in 4 by 4 by 4s. Maybe characterisation isn’t that important when juxtaposed to the underlying core concepts Nolan was trying to convey.

        • ryan110001

          Sure you can use love to overcome 5th dimension, fall through a wormhole and blackhoel and find yourself behind the library of your home. That made so much sense.

        • cuspernicus

          Oh screw off… Thats the eternal refrain of idiots who get all moist about nolan films.. “Ohhh you just did not understand it”…

          Nolan film == overly convoluted plot + deus ex machina

          • Well if that was an overly convoluted plot to you then I guess we need to use words with less than three syllables here on out, lest we posit something way to complex for your sweet little head…

          • cuspernicus

            moron… If you think that plot was anything other than garbage you are a clown…

          • Well done! It surprises me every time toI see a mentally challenged twat drag themselves up the evolutionary scale just enough to post actual words. You’re doing great….let me know the ‘special’ school you attend and I’ll put in a good word for you.

          • cuspernicus

            Wow that was pathetic. Did you copy and paste that? Very gracious of you to offer a recommendation to your alma mater. Incoherent moron…

          • So pathetic you spent an hour coming up with the second quite lame ‘take-down’….hahaha. Does the hospital make you wear training wheels before they let you out of your ward?

          • cuspernicus

            Oh Oh but you just “don’t understand” it was an hour for you… but mere seconds with my lame nolanesque plot device….

          • cuspernicus

            Aussies are often surprised… Gallipoli? anyone?

          • Pharkin Khuntz

            a simple swing of a 14lb hammer through your cranium is the only 100% cure for smug self satisfied cunts such as you.

            You can hide on the internet poncing up your so superior intellect in order to proclaim how much you get it when the rest of us average joe’s call this film the horse shite that it is. Complete with that thinking mans actor mc clothes horse.

            Death is a great leveller and my 220lb of brute bearded nutcase ignorance wins out over smart ass 100% of the time.

          • smart arse*

          • cuspernicus

            Yeah you must eat that garbage up… You must love Law and Order as well… Infodump and technobabble… literal pathetic plot devices forwarded by banal dialogue… Pathetic low brow film making. Nolan’s bread and butter. Tell me how many scenes in 2001 a space odyssey spent more than 2 minutes explaining what was happening? Oh wow thats right! NONE… Because he was a real artist and let his imagery explain it for itself… Nolan is a hack… And idiots like you deserve the inartistic fluff that nolan churns out…

      • FilmNav

        `His film making is atrocious’……lol! Are you serious????

      • ryan110001

        I am sure I heard thumps on my head and heard “This is 4, This is 4, That is 4, This is 4” over

    • FilmNav

      Well said. This Deborah Dross comes across as nothing short of ignorant, and unbelievably dumb.
      I wonder if she was really watching the same film as everyone else, and I’m also wondering if she has enough brain cells to even sit through a 3 hour film as deep and as intelligent as this, without her head blowing a fuse……judging by the review, it looks like this is exactly what happened.
      We really should feel sorry for her rather than criticising her.

      • 60MinutesBaby60

        I kinda thought her review was right in the money.

      • cuspernicus

        Deep and intelligent? LOLOL

        The first half was like watching an episode of law and order… Enough explainitory dialogue for you moron?

      • Just Listen

        “As deep and intelligent as this” lmao. Just end your life.

    • kulishah

      Wow, really? You need to stop going to AMCs and spend more time on other things happening on EARTH! Gravity generating spacecrafts have been around – India’s latest successful mission to Mars was based on exactly that and has been used before. 2. If ‘this’ movie is your most amazing explanation of relativity then well, I don’t think reading comments is your thing. And the last part you write about his will to focus inside a blackhole gets him out!! At this point, my brain gave the will to continue to respond to your comments. Signing out. Sure you are excited about the sequel for your next lecture on ‘science’!

      • Ah one more amazing thing to add to my list now. Comments about this film seem to attract retarded egotistical and pointless trolls like you

        • cuspernicus

          Oh Oh the irony…

      • cuspernicus

        Thats not gravity being generated… Its simply centripetal force. NOT gravity. OK?

    • Dan Lee

      Fashion mag? What a sexist dick you are.

      • No Dan, if it were a male reviewer I probably would made reference to a GQ mag, so not sexist, more idiot averse. Interesting that a reviewer can write a review without any understanding of the subject matter, completely miss the point, cause many people to avoid going to see this movie which in turn lowers it’s revenue and your take-away is ‘fashion mag’. Who’s the dick Dan? Can you find the ‘dick’ Dan?

        • cuspernicus

          Idiot averse? Wow can i be your therapist?

          • I don’t know mate, with all the trolling you’re doing I think you might need a bit of therapy more than I do

          • cuspernicus

            Hey i am not then one who thinks that garbage is intelligent… Clown

      • Just Listen

        The ‘fashion mag’ comment was accurate.

    • Rand

      *SPOILERS* The point is, it’s a stupid movie. The movie captures you in the beginning by intriguing you with the wormhole… How did it get there? What does it look like? Where does it go? Is it even safe? After going through the wormhole the movie completely falls apart. They go to a random planet out of some they find and don’t give a logical explanation why they should go to this planet instead of the others, lets just go there. The gravity is higher than Earth’s gravity, but you have a gigantic tidal wave when the water is ONLY a foot deep and the tidal wave takes like 5 min to actually move, I mean wtf any rational person would find this ridiculous! Then they say oh every 1 hour spent on the planet is 7 years??? What!? It has nothing to do with gravity it’s the speed you travel at. So the black guy on the station who says he’s been waiting for 23 years which is bs would not happen. Hey dummy, use the the stasis pod maybe you wouldn’t have had grey hairs all over your face! Matt Damon being a complete jerk for no reason. Says he’s gone for stretches of being awake and then going back into stasis and just gave up and finally didn’t set a date… hey here’s a thought why didn’t you do that the first time??? Hmm maybe that way you don’t have to come out of stasis hysterical that it’s been so long, really stupid unnecessary dramatics. Matt Damon is apparently also a complete moron because aside from being a doctor and the captain of the expedition, he doesn’t know overriding the docking procedure is unsafe :O Gee I wonder what might happen if I try to wing it and dock manually and not even pressurize the cabin. Now the other Matt I tried to kill instead of talking things over like normal human beings is trying to save me, oh screw it I don’t want to talk to him. You probably get the gist of it, it is HORRIBLY written. The ending! OMG… seriously??? For one thing you don’t go into a blackhole and then end up behind your daughter’s bookshelves in infinite possibilities where you can easily navigate by just floating around and finding the right time and place… oh because his mind and his love does make it possible. I mean people please come on. Why did he fall and now he’s just floating? How can he somehow communicate with the robot? He can somehow knock down the books, but nothing else. He can somehow move the secondhand on the watch. And then to top it all off he somehow figures out how to communicate the secrets the gravity, if you bought into that you’re gullible. And even if you could, even the robot said this is beyond humans to comprehend. Then Coop says humans built the black hole??? If you didn’t catch that, go hang yourself. I understand that this is Nolan’s interpretation, and besides going against science I can let it go because we really don’t know what’s inside. But then he escapes the black hole??? Um hello, if not even light escapes how the hell do YOU escape? This movie is the shittiest possibly ever made, and it’s just flashy for very gullible stupid people think they have a clue and think they’re with it, when really they’re just stupid gullible people. Screw this movie and anybody who likes this movie. SCREW Noland, and while I’m at it screw Abrahms too. I’m sick of all you morons who you think you got a grasp on logic and come here with your bs opinions subtlety suggesting anyone who doesn’t go with the vast majority of a dumb crowd MUST be wrong because surely so many people CAN’T have have their heads up their ass!

      • Jeffrey Luong

        The story is by no means perfect. However, the basis of the movie and the science it’s based off of is real.

        It is well known in science that spacetime warps via gravity and intense gravity has an effect on spacetime. So the relativity between 1 hr = 7 years is definitely plausible and in some cases of the universe true/existing, especially in locations like near black holes where gravity is so great.

        For the planet with huge waves, the black hole causes huge tidal forces on the planet, which causes water to rise from a few feet to mountains. Gravitational forces (like what the moon does to the earth) caused by the black hole causes water to get “pulled” towards the black hole which is why the water level is so low when they first land. (My explanation isn’t very good, you may want to search other sources for a better explanation of tidal forces.)

        As for the tesseract, it is a 3 dimensional representation of time created by “future humans” (this is where the sci-fi kicks in) who have the ability to control gravity and time.

        As for people who doesn’t understand and ask “how did humans survive to create the tesseract to save themselves in the first place?” In the film’s interpretation of it, time is laid out in it’s entirety like you would see in 3 dimensional space, within the tesseract. Therefore, you can literally “walk” to a moment of the past, present or future.

        In other words, you can’t theoretically “change” anything as everything is always happening at once…past, present, future. The events of the film HAS to have happened the way it did.

        • Just Listen

          “However, the basis of the movie and the science it’s based off of is real.” Lmao, I stopped reading after that. You don’t deserve anyone’s attention until you get that I.Q. up.

          • Jack Lewis

            I would have never expected that someone who couldn’t read a comment would not understand anything about physics. Totally unexpected stuff.

        • mickrussom

          your understanding of science sucks and you are a dumb moron who thinks listening to a few neil degrasse tyson shows makes you an expert. you are an idiot and tyson is a fraud.

      • Jeffrey Luong

        Here’s a short explanation from Neil Degrasse Tyson on some things from the film:

        • mickrussom

          neil tyson is a fraud , a liar and a propagandist.

      • Isabel P

        um.. as a physicist, i found a couple parts of the film highly speculative/imaginative.. but most parts of it surprisingly spot on… its really not often science is portrayed this accurately in a film and i enjoyed it immensely for that… what you see in the film, except for what happens in the black hole, is pretty much our current understanding of special/general relativity.

        for starters :
        time dilation in accelerated frames of reference.

        tidal waves would act and exist differently on that planet from earth’s due to the immense gravitational field from the black hole

        And perhaps more than anything our current model of this universe is a temporary one, the best model we have for the time being, but one that every scientist understands is for all likelihood going to be replaced in the future. There are glaring questions still unanswered in fundamental physics, and any solution might require its complete overhaul. Relativity theory for example certainly isn’t complete (as mentioned in the film).. we are merely assuming for now that almost nothing can escape from black holes, and it has worked well for us so far, but that too could change with contrary evidence.

        • Just Listen

          If you are a physicist, our humanity has no hope.

        • ocdhd

          A physicist without an imagination is mathematician.
          Second. Tidal waves without much wind. If water is that shallow, shouldn’t the surface behind it been left dry if infact a blackhole is acting upon it? Water is heavier than atmosphere, so how is this planet holding its atmosphere together, yet it moves water the way it does?
          Your comments lead me to question the validity of your statement that you are a physicist. I am no physicist, nor am I a mathematician, but I can assure you that no physicist would be commenting here starting with an “um..” improper use of grammar, and attempting to draw legitimate reasoning rather inaccurately from this film. Perhaps your imagination is powerful and in this imagination of yours, you really are a physicist, but you’re certainly not a mathematician, which requires you to be a physicist at all. But I can tell you this. An intelligent being can read a gauge as to what it is dealing with, something that possesses a higher knowledge, or not, and though I may not be a physicist, many humans like myself would with all certainly conclude that you Sir are no physicist, because reading from the content of your post, almost half of it from the beginning, is nonsense, and the rest, you learned like anyone else can from knowledge available to the general public if they decide to seek it. I will be looking forward to your trolling in other posts claiming you are also a Spy, A secret agent, a Navy Seal, and an Alien creature from the 5th dimension. Back into your looney bin kid.

        • mickrussom

          here we go again with a puke liar hipster pop scientist idiot product of neil degrasse tyson drivel again. you are stupid, you know nothing, and you defending this film means you are a complete and total idiot who will amount to nothing and invent nothing and patent nothing nor sell anything of value.

    • cuspernicus

      “the most amazing explanations of relativity itself ” are you serious?

      thats just absurd…

      If you actually think you understand physics further after watching this piece of garbage then you should be rendered for cat food…

    • Sean

      Hipster Beard Platform you have, in one fell swoop, salvaged my respect for hipsters, even (especially?) of the bearded variety, forever more. A wonderful take-down of a dumb bitch’s dumb views.

      • Thanks dude…I was starting to think I was on my own given the trolling I’m copping from ‘cone’pernicus. Not that it worries me, it’s like arguing with someone from a 2D universe

    • mickrussom

      fermi paradox and universal constructor. you dont know what these are because you are the fraudulent neil degrasse loving pop science puke type.

      • CassiusClay

        I think the man’s points were based on far less tenuous assumptions than yours. Still in this company and with your statements, we certainly don’t have a Fermi paradox….we now have direct contact with a total pratt

      • CassiusClay

        Here’s another Fermi Paradox….I should see capital letters in your sentences. There are many other sentences here (including this one) that do use punctuation and capitals. If capitals are seen in most sentences we consider that a pattern so I should see them in yours, yet; I don’t!

  • Xeb97

    Well put.

    • Bill Kleinsturn

      In a pig’s eye.

  • Arancel

    Please, just because the reviewer cant understand the plot, it doesn´t mean the movie is a treaty of quantum physics and therefore bad or boring, the movie is totally enjoyable and almost perfect, and i am no scientist.

    • cuspernicus

      clearly not a scientist…

  • Concerned Human

    The author seems much more concerned with making her own ideological assertions through the prism of a fine science fiction movie than she does actually reviewing the film. Excuse me, was the arbitrary mankind distinction really necessary?? Seeing as Anne Hathaway/Jessica Chastain, and not McConaughey, actually saved mankind it seems Ross’ petty point scoring fails more spectacularly than her attempt at a coherent review.

    • turtletrader

      Dude!spoiler alert

  • jonhedoesit

    You really thought this movie felt long? Do you have ADD/what medication(s) were you on? I didn’t really like the movie but it really zipped by and it was a fun ride. The fact that you call it “dull” says a lot about your own state of mind.

  • Hannah

    Deborah, I couldn’t agree with you more on this review. So many things wrong with this movie. Anne Hathaway’s “character” was an absolute joke and just about sums up the idea Hollywood has that as long as you put a woman in the movie, it’s a positive representation.

    • Bill Kleinsturn

      Well, “Hannah,” to a good half of the population, if you put Anne Hathaway in any movie, it’s just perfectly fine. As it was here. That’s entertainment.

      And Jessica Chastain was a delight to watch, too.

      As for Mr. Perfect Most Handsome Looking Guy? Eh, not so much.

    • Sean

      Who the fuck cares whether there was a ‘good’ (whatever the hell that means) female character in a film as glorious and sweeping as this? I just marvelled at the whole experience, I wasn’t worrying about whether the film was properly undertaking its feminist duty – you, Hannah, are a moron

  • Bill Davis

    The movie has some big weaknesses, but positing whether mankind is meant to die here or not is not one of them. This reviewer is an idiot!

  • Bill Kleinsturn

    Alert! Alert! Reviewer on the rag.

    Yeah, sure… everything about the movie was absolutely horrible. Uh huh.

    So, ultimately, my best advice to you?

    Ignore her pointless screed. Decide for yourself.

    • 60MinutesBaby60

      I did and I have I agree with her.

    • WFB56

      “Reviewer on the rag.” You can’t expect to be taken seriously after that lead.

  • girlgeek

    “Alert! Alert! Reviewer on the rag.”
    “Maybe resist buying a fashion mag next time and pickup a ‘Physics for Dummies'”
    “The reviewer is retarded.”
    Well, boys, you’ve convinced me. I kinda agreed with this review, but now I realise the film was not over-long with a plot full of holes and close to zero characterisation. Thanks for putting me right. (BTW, I haven’t read or heard the phrase “on the rag” since school – I’m a real fan of old-fashioned charm.)

    • JimHHalpert

      Sorry, love (patronising enough?), but if you think “humankind” is a word fit for grown-up use, you and Debbie are welcome to each other.

      Now, quick! To the Batmobile. Zoe and Lena need your help.

  • Ganesh R

    Did you miss Jar Jar Trek’s lensflare in Interstellar?

  • coop


    “I accept this may be my limitation, as science isn’t my strongest suit, but on the way out of the screening I attended I asked a fellow reviewer if he had understood the plot and he said: ‘No, but that didn’t matter.’ ”

    But it does matter. If you don’t understand something, don’t trash it. Either try to understand it or accept that you have limited intelligence and move on.

    • WFB56

      It was incoherent. You don’t need much of a science education to recognise this.

    • Zoo

      Dude. She went on to say it DOES matter to her. You should have kept reading. I did understand the plot and the science and I have to tell you that fact was not to the movie’s benefit.

  • Jimmy JvR

    What’s this discussion all about with these sorry blokes? All hail to Madame Ross, she is sorely needed in this hyped up world of movies and she should recieve the Pulitzer and come to think of it the Nobel peace price too! Please hang on to her Spectator and offer her a job for life, she may not like it but she saves mankind in the proces.

  • Christian

    I hate to point out the obvious but it usually is men who do the saving. Firemen, policemen, soldiers. When you’re in a tight spot you’re hoping the person coming to the rescue is big and burly, and that usually means a man. There are no feminists when you’re getting your head kicked in down a dark alley at 3am, no one hoping for a 5ft 8 stone wpc

    • 60MinutesBaby60


      • Christian

        It’s a female police officer

  • FilmNav

    How dumb can a reviewer be? Staggering, and embarrassing. Does this Deborah Dross actually get paid for writing such super-dull and super-annoying drivel. I believe everyone should have their say and opinions on movies, except when they start criticising a film for being dumb, when the author clearly isn’t over-furnished in the brain department herself. Probably the most silly, ignorant and thick review I have read for a movie review in a long time….maybe even ever!

    • WFB56

      Maybe if you had seen the film, as I have, you would understand her desire to dump on it.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Ah, I quite liked the tone of that review.

  • Fowzie Smith-Tahir

    I would have fired this reviewer, what an embarrassment. Such sloppy writing.

    • Zoo

      Don’t knock it. Some directors can make a 3 hour movie with nothing more than sloppy writing.

  • moronophobe

    ” The use of ‘mankind’, rather than ‘humankind’, is also telling”
    what’s wrong about ‘mankind’ ? women are not only men, they are ‘wo’ too.

  • SPW

    Finally, has Ms Dross written herself out of a job? Come on Speccie, can’t you treat film with a little more intelligence than this? And as for the feminazi ‘humankind’… Wow!

  • WFB56

    I wish I had read this before going to see the film. Ms. Ross nails it in this review.

    The only redeeming feature of the film is that Matt Damon plays a bad guy who falsifies his data to secure his own ends. His character is named Dr. Mann and this seems like a shot against Dr. Michael Mann who fabricated his climate data to create his ridiculous “hockey stick” for warmers. Other than that, a complete bust.

    • PDXWriter

      What a moron. No, Dr. Mann did not fabricate any climate data. And I am quite sure that whatever else Nolan meant to do in his film, endorsing imbecilic global warming denial was not part of it.

      • WFB56

        Mann fabricated the data in his widely and thoroughly discredited “hockey stick”. Mann claims to have won a Nobel prize but no one at the Nobel Prize committee is aware of this; just another one of his lies.

        I suppose you have found your substitute for religion and regard facts that contradict your religion as heresy. Clearly, you are from the eco-fascist camp which guarantees that no serious person takes you to be in any way credible on this or any other matter.

        If you knew anything about math or science you would know that the anthropogenic global warming scare mongering doesn’t add up, its nothing more than a vehicle for personal aggrandizement by people of little consequence and the power hungry.

        In the unlikely event that you have an open mind, or a mind at all, here is a math explanation for beginners:

  • Bill

    Nailed it.

  • Mike E

    I haven’t seen the movie yet so perhaps it is bad, I don’t know.

    The problem though I suspect, is that this journalist, as most journalists,
    is a scientific illiterate and is zero interested in science and grand cosmological
    visions. Journalists are interested in human characters and relationships, that’s
    it. Therefore, if a movie is not primarily about human characters, feelings and
    relationships they just don’t get it. To them it’s empty and boring.

    Take the movie Gravity; everybody loved it, because it was all about humans
    doing human things in a childish and ridiculous version of space. Sure, the
    special effects were good, but the script, plot, and events were plain childish
    and stupid, with the main characters swimming around freely like birds in space
    between everything that was supposedly just a little space-swim away.

    • Sean

      The grand battle between the humanities and the sciences indeed, Mike. Movie reviewers will stand in front of an upturned trash can and declare it modern art but are too intellectually incapable to appreciate the sheer majesty and scope of this film. Tells you all you need to know about them. I think this film needed to be set in a grimy inner-city or come with subtitles to be appreciated as something worthwhile by these morons.

  • Spiros Karkav

    ‘ignore the hype, stay home’

    I really hope one day, people who say things like that are filtered from being able to make public posts with their negative opinions.

    Interstellar is a fun film. It is a thought provoking film.

    Maybe if you’re a film critic you think this movie is bad because you want to convince yourself you’re too smart for the plot, but really, if you take a moment to sit back and watch the film instead of just criticise from the high seat you’ve put yourself on, It’s still a really fun, thought provoking film for many people.

    Is it scientifically correct? Maybe not. At least its not another film where tits explosions and guns are the main focus.

    Grow up. Take some sugar with your earl grey, stop trying to turn people away from a good movie to increase your view count or self esteem.

  • David

    Deborah Ross, you begin your review by saying, “let the obliteration begin” as a better option than having an “alpha-male American superhero who single-handedly saves us.” You end it by complaining that “when it comes to ‘saving the human race’ what America has in mind is saving America.” Well, which is it, Deb? Do you want us superhero Yanks to come save you or stay home? (Do I sense a certain historical resonance here?) And incidentally, it wasn’t the alpha-male who saved the universe in the movie. It was his daughter. A minor plot twist you seem to have missed. Perhaps you should have seen the movie again and written a review after you understood it. Or perhaps I’m approaching your review as something serious when it was only meant to be silly: I feel that inside this shallow review there’s an even shallower review waiting for this one to evaporate. I did notice the earthbound scenes in the first act were focused on one small part of the earth, but that often happens with apocalyptic movies. Widening the scope would have lengthened the movie and was unlikely to add anything serious. We don’t need to see the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben or St. Basil’s Cathedral all crumbling (again). It gets boring after a while. What we needed in this movie was an approach to dramatizing an approaching Apocalypse with a better human drama, like “The Road,” “Take Shelter” or “28 Days Later” — none of which would have improved with any greater geographic range on Earth.

  • Rob McConnell

    Just watched this movie and it is not only cosmically stupid it is just stupid in a lot of ridiculous mundane ways. Comparing it to 2001 is just plain insulting.

    My list that I have come up with in 20 minutes:

    -the Okra crop failed? Okay wheat is globally important, maybe corn but Okra? what exactly is that?
    -Combines running around in fields doing nothing. Combines are for harvesting, no harvesting going on in these fields why are there combines running around?
    -Tractors running around in the fields with no implements — WHy?? Someone clearly has no idea even how basic agriculture works.
    -World can’t produce enough food for everyone but the population is so small they use robotic agricultural equipment –huh???
    –What exactly caused this global catastrophy? No mention of global warming, corn looks pretty good so there must be enough rain. Still producing fossil fuels so that can’t be the problem, crops are getting blights and that requires burning?? Bit vague there. And there are other crops besides wheat, corn and OKRA (hahahaha) that could be grown. Little mixed farming anyone?
    -Somehow an INDIAN drone comes down middle of american continent and farmer boy Cooper connects to it with a laptop he just happened to have in his truck as he was driving his kids to school. So he knows the secure communication frequencies, the encryption codes, the programming language, the control code sequences and I guess can read and write Hindi, and his laptop just happens to have a military grade tranceiver on board that lets it talk to the drone — ha, ha, ha ha. That’s as stupid as 4th of July where Aliens have a USB interface on their computers.
    -Oh and he controls the drone with a touch pad. Nothing like a 2D controller in a 3D world.
    -So they manage to dismantle the drone, load it up in the truck and still get to the parent teacher meeting they were already late for on time. Wow quick work Cooper dudes and dudettes. You really can manipulate time.
    -Oh and does anybody wonder how that truck he is driving which has to already be about 30 or 40 years old look identical 23 years later? Great truck!!
    -So they have “corrected” text books to say the space race was all made up. But, but, but, Cooper is only 37 (as proven when his 12 year old said 23 years later that she was now the same age as when he left). Nasa test pilots are all ex-military, oops they have not had armies for 20 years, okay so somehow he became a test pilot at maybe 25, which is very young, he would have been flying for Nasa sometime in his late 20s, early 30s, WHEN HIS KIDS WERE ALREADY BORN, so we are expected to believe that everyone has forgotten about NASA, his kids don’t know he was a test pilot and Nasa lost track of their best test pilot in a couple of years. And they expect to find new planets??? Maybe their arse with a map
    –They need lots of farmers apparently. ALthough Coops spread uses robotic farm machinery and seems to be literally as far as the eye can see but they need more farmers. Not Biologist or Biochemists or Geneticists to produce crops that use less water and resist the blights, but farmers to keep growing crops that die. Jeez this is just so dumb.
    –So did Nasa only have one test pilot who flew? I don’t think so. Where were all the other test pilots he would have been working with? Did they lose them all in the last five years?? Wow those guys are careless.
    –Okay and they put all that other hardware out into space how?? With no pilots?? They sent all their other pilots to the other planets. Oops, should have kept one of those guys around with some experience I guess. Wow this is stupid.
    –They finally find Nasa, what a coincidence that the secret base is within driving distance from their farm but no one ever seems to have noticed that there must be thousands of people driving to work there everyday, not to mention the massive amounts of material, fuel, food, power etc that needs to be made.
    –So these cute little spaceships they have can do multiple single stage to orbit trips with no evident fuel supply, but they need a massive three stage Saturn like rocket to get to the space station — huh???
    –How did secret NASA manage to get all these other people out to 10 planets (was it 12?) build an ass kicking space station, develope cryo-sleep technology, build a bunch of those cute single stage to orbit space ships all without anyone knowing? Oh and gather up a bunch of fertilized embryos, develope artificial wombs to grow them and artificial whatevers to raise the kids. All on the down-low.

    This is just too stupid to go on, and this is only the first half hour of the movie.

    Please, please, please start making better movies Hollywood.

    • Rand

      Yes!!! Yes!!! Someone is sane for once!!! Someone actually isn’t a dumb sheep!!! Somebody who actually thinks like me, could it be?? This is life changing!!!

    • cuspernicus

      could not agree more…

    • PDXWriter

      Rob, this is great! Thanks so much. I didn’t have the patience to make a list of the idiocies in this film, and — honestly — missed two-thirds of the ones you lay out. Good going!

    • Andy

      Wow, now that I’ve read your comment, the movie looks even dumber than it did when I watched it. All of that was in the first 30 minutes, which was the least idiotic part of the movie. Ugh.

  • Gabriel Clark

    Reviewer possesses a stunning lack of imagination, curiosity, and individual thought– precisely the type of people this film rails against, it’s no wonder she didn’t ‘enjoy’ it. Yet another sign the bloated population of radfem cogs are why we can’t have nice things.

    • Zoo

      Yes, this movie requires a heck of a lot of imagination.

  • ryan110001

    I am in search of a wormhole through which I am going to convey my hate towards the 3 hours that I spent in the cinema hall watching his movie. I think hate can also overcome the 7th dimension. So when I find myself behind the walls of my bedroom, I am going to try to send hexadecimal messages to my phone. The messages will read “Stay”.

  • gerontius

    Having just perused below the line I would advise Deborah Ross to review grown up movies in future

  • gerontius

    “Plus, it’s pretty clear that when it comes to ‘saving the human race’ what America has in mind is saving America.”

    Well, that’s fair enough – they’re doing the paying. Pay for your own salvation lady.

    • ryan110001

      She is busy travelling through space time continum, please come back again.

  • ryan110001

    I cant believe that most of the audience actually likes interstellar. Here is my list of everything wrong with this movie.

    1. Slow and laborious.
    2. Serious and treats the audience as dummies.
    3. Science fiction is hocus pocus just like fantasy thats why you don’t make a serious film on hocus pocus cause you won;t be able mankind has no explanations. Refer to guardians of the galaxy, a science fiction but not serious and filled with humour and characters you like.
    4. For turning Matthew McConoughy into an actor I detest. Imagine you spend 5 years in space, and you spend all your time talking about saving poor us, and more importantly saving his daughter when in fact he leaves his kids for his own selfish intentions as he is bored and wants to fly a spacecraft. What a d******. If he really loved his kids, he would stay with them and see the most important years of their lives.
    5. So lets the most important mission of humanity and there are no presidents involved, except for America (as it is with dumb hollywood flicks), what’s happened to the rest of the world. It does look like one black dude survived only to die in space, though hollywood has smartened up oh so slightly, he died second.
    6. Its a bird, no documentary, no adventure, no thriller, drama, jeezo just stick to one theme, what’s the bit with Matt Damon, Now I hate him too for appearing in this shite.
    7. The bookshelf crap, what utter bs, sure we go through a blackhole, its the fastest commute to behind the walls. Einstein missed the theory of the bookshelf.

    I could go on and on, interstellar has proved that christopher nolan is another one trick pony similar to nighty shymalan. I am sure this movie will be impetus for him to carry on making expensive crap until the time the audience turns his back and studios lose belief and another wonder kid comes up.

  • paulinekiernan

    Is this supposed to be a review? And in a magazine that purports to address well-informed readership?
    Does the reviewer have no more critically-robust lexicon than prefixing words with ‘super-’? ‘Super-dumb’ etc
    I’m not concerned with whether the author likes or dislikes the film, but with the sloppy, lazy way the review is written. Could The Spectator not hire someone who actually has knowledge of films and/or who has a modicum of expertise in making a meaningful critical argument?

  • Ponydaemmerung

    Deborah Ross’ glib style is usually very amusing, but when applied to a film that sailed miles over her head, it’s embarrassing.

  • Wang Bo

    I seriously hope this dumb bitch would read the comments here and reflect what a truly dumb blonde she really is

    ” And there is much talk of relativity, tidal gravity, quantum data, other dimensions. Was a fifth dimension benevolently offering us that wormhole? I could not make head or tail of it. I accept this may be my limitation, as science isn’t my strongest suit,”

    It doesnt matter if you are good in science or not, if you follow the story like any other normal human being the answer has been revealed as bluntly and clearly as it possibly could; a ‘higher dimension’ being(which could be the future us) provided the worm hole and communicated to us through gravity(similar to Contact). How hard is this for you to understand and accept???????

    • Wang Bo

      also i seriously doubt you have watched any of the star treks given the mental retardation shown in this review

  • Wang Bo

    “who may or may not be Matt Damon. (I would never tell.”

    it takes 3 seconds of research and you refuse to do this. the general attitude of this article is retardedly anti-intellectual, i refuse to understand and refuse to be educated, and filled with presumptions. what a whole load of crap

    • Zoo

      It was a joke. It would have taken you 3 seconds of research to realize this and you refused to do that.

  • Redwood

    Its weird how many people are saying bad things about this film -1. have you even seen it? I have and its a fucking epic and an amazing film. definitely worth a watch .
    2. its not all supposed to make perfect sense – its a film – dumb dumb’s.
    3. to say the film is not a good adventure and not much happens …? would be hard to say something stupider.
    4. This reviewer is pathetic – its a completely subjective review – they obviously don’t like space or science films – end – they should not have bothered – if you generally don’t like sci-fi there is a good chance you wont like the film and wont be interested in the thought provoking nature of sci fi – too bad because it really is an amazing film . Deborah Ross – you are pretty deluded or you don’t like sci-fi if so you shouldn’t write reviews on stuff you’re going to be completely biased with – pathetic. Learn how to write less transparent bullshit.

  • Sean

    Deborah Ross is a fucking moron.

    • Zoo

      I love an objective and qualitative comment.

      • Sean

        Excellent – I’m all too happy to have provided you with one

  • David Prentice

    This film blew newborn mules. The end.

  • Jessica

    I agree with Ms. Ross this movie could have been better and much shorter too, I mean 3 hours come on. Plus the climax took forever to build, the plot was all over the place, and nobody has even commented on how bad the sound mixing and editing was that half the time you couldn’t even hear the dialogue.

  • he_who_scoffs_at_danger

    What’s the Big Idea Nolan presented to us? Space-time relativity? Wow. Welcome to the understanding of the nature of reality that Einstein established at the foot of the last century. This is the science that makes the GPS in your car possible. It isn’t a theme which unfolds into meaning.

    The special effects depicting space-time distortion are beautiful and the software that rendered them was engineered from equations worked up by a respected physicist. When the attempt is made to put the theory of relativity into the mouths of characters, however, the dialogue is bad. At one point, Nolan has one scientist explain that black holes aren’t really holes but spheres to another scientist. They both might be expected to know this already, but the one explains it to the other anyway as if the one were some guy who slept through high school and the other was that dude at the party who watches a lot of Nova.

    Outside of that subject, the movie tries out a handful of other ideas, none of which are all that good. Some contradict each other.

    The hero is a reluctant, unhappy farmer whose career as a NASA pilot was forestalled by the nearing End of Days for life on planet earth. The nature of the apocalypse that befalls Earth in Interstellar is left vague and what is established makes no sense whatsoever. Nukes and war and avarice are mentioned here and there, but the main mechanism of Earth’s demise is a blight which withers the planet’s vegetation. Now only corn will grow and massive dust storms sweep the continents. It’s un-fixable, we gotta build spaceships and evacuate Earth. That’s what a secret cabal of what is apparently earth’s only scientists concludes. The rest of the population is shambling around in the dust, growing corn and expecting the whole thing to hit bottom at some point.

    Wouldn’t it be more sensible to revive the dying planet you’re on than to go to another galaxy looking for an already completely barren planet? Why did nobody think of that? Blight is perhaps a fine way to avoid making the dreaded, Republicans and/or Democrats Did The Apocalypse metaphor, which is fine, but Nolan hand-waves it like it just doesn’t matter that this idea that interstellar exploration motivated by a global crisis that science and technology could more easily resolve by staying put makes no sense. Rather, it just seems that he wanted to evoke the Depression Era dust-bowl for stylistic purposes. This is not how you engage Big Ideas.

    The education community in Interstellar is focused on the pragmatic concern of training kids in agriculture. The principal at the school our hero’s son and daughter attend astutely puts it, “The world didn’t run out of [gadgets], it ran out of food.” He’s right. A Professor adds that it’s morally wrong to encourage kids to look to the stars when everyone’s survival depends on this and several successive generations devoting themselves to tending to their soil and to one another. She’s right. But our hero is angered by the idea that the world needs more farmers than explorers. “We used to look up and try to find our place in the stars,” but now, “we look down to find our place in the dirt.”

    Somewhere in the middle of the film, the idea is proposed that love is or is like a physical force analogous to gravity, in that it can freely pass through time and space in ways which are mysterious to us, but the idea isn’t developed enough to rate. It roughly mixes in with the Our Place in the Stars vs. the Our Place in the Dirt metaphor towards the thematic climax where all these half-chewed ideas clash into a paradox of meaning. The action at the climax seems to vindicate our hero’s conceits about exploratory risk while simultaneously saying something like, “yea, but we only went out to the stars to discover ourselves”. Why, we must wonder, did we undertake this journey in the first place if we could have discovered ourselves and saved the planet without the harrowing and extravagant trip to a distant galaxy?

    I’ve spoiled about three fifths of Interstellar for you. Another fifth is good stuff and the remaining fifth is more of that half-chewed stuff that doesn’t quite get over to the audience. How did the wormhole get there? How does our hero survive his trip through the event horizon of a black hole? What was that double-cross Michael Caine perpetrated all about? How do they justify knocking back beers on the front porch when wheat is supposedly extinct?

    Whatever potentially decent ideas made it into Interstellar were poorly handled. The ideas of space-time relativity are big, powerful ideas, but Nolan failed to draw meaning from them. The plot objective is recursive. And yet the film didn’t feel like a waste because it was so strongly crafted. Nolan’s films are like this: intricate puzzle-boxes that unlock to reveal nothing but the creator’s admiration for his own methods.

  • voxullus

    The only thing that is clear in this convoluted piece of nonsense is the concept that 5th dimensional beings are completely inept and stupid. What kind of multidimensional idiot would be able to create a stable wormhole and a black-hole that actually is an extremely specific 5th dimensional space of a bedroom, but not able to simply gravity communicate the bloody formula to professor Michael Caine directly.. How in their right mind would plot such a convoluted and stupid method to ensure that humans find the correct “formula” in time??? What a crock of shit.

  • Alex

    I totally agree on everything.. except for Star Trek at least there you saw some action it was fun old or new doesn’t matter. Interstellar was BOOOOOORING and slow pessimistic movie. The earth dies, the american hero goes into space to save humanity. He finds another american in a base with an american flag, the world is only US obviously. The deserted astronaut being alone for years he goes nuts and tries to kill our hero almost destroys everything but eventually they survive and our hero dives into a black hole unspoilled. Here science goes out of the window.. he becomes a spaghetti man and incinerates in billion degrees? No.. instead he travels in a magical world where he can choose any time frame past present or future and a liiitle hero sends messages to his daughter from this room somewhere in US farm house.

    Most dumb movie I have seen in years.. Not clever, no science, pessimism, death, sulk, annoying!

  • Lord Smodon


    • PDXWriter

      Oh, come on, don’t be coy. Tell us how you really feel!

  • PDXWriter

    I come to this months late but, THANK YOU! I have seen so much slathering praise for Mr. Nolan’s piece o’ tripe, and until I stumbled onto this review hadn’t found a single piece whacking it properly. Nolan went to great lengths to make sure that everyone knew of his boundless regard for the late Stanley Kubrick, and no effort was spared in cluing us all in on how he was trying to emulate 2001: A Space Odyssey. Well, Interstellar is no 2001. It is a collection of silliness, a dumb film indeed. From the very beginning — an apocalyptic disaster sweeping the earth that makes NO SENSE based on modern scientific, engineering, and agricultural knowledge — to the very end, when “love” is posited as some universal force of nature comparable to gravity, there is scarcely a single element of actual “science fiction” in this film.

    There are two kinds of “science fiction,” as any real SF fan can tell you. The first is a tiny, tiny minority of what’s out there: true science fiction, sometimes referred to as “hard SF.” Hard SF typically posits some unknown thing that, however, does not in any way specifically violate known science no matter how wondrous it might be. To the greatest extent possible, everything that surrounds this “thing” in the story must be absolutely scientifically accurate. So no zipping through space at 100,000 times the speed of light. No space ships with “gravity plating” as in Star Trek. No teleporters: scientists have done a perfectly admirable job decontructing that concept to the point of it being no more likely than Harry Potter’s magic wand. Indeed, literally dozens of common “science fiction” conceits are actually forbidden because they aren’t based in science at all.

    Then there’s the other kind of “science fiction,” the vast majority, which — funnily enough — isn’t science fiction at all. It’s science fantasy. Star Wars. Star Trek. Back to the Future. The Terminator. Stargate (although it had, at its core, a far more substantively plausible scientific idea than many others). There’s really scarcely any more “science” in all of these popular works as you’ll find in the aforementioned Harry Potter series, or The Lord of the Ring, or the flurry of annoying vampire romances and superhero yarns out there these days. Mind you, these science fantasy books and films are often rip-roaring fun. I’m a committed fan of some of them. For example, some entries in the Star Trek series (primarily in TNG, and also DS9), if you can suspend disbelief long enough, are profoundly insightful and moving. The Stargate TV franchise was terrific. (And, for the record, I’ve inhaled every one of the Potter books and films, and was a LOTR maniac since the 5th grade, around 1965).

    But they aren’t science fiction. By contrast, 2001: A Space Odyssey IS. Arthur Clarke was known his entire career for his hard SF, Kubrick worried the details to death, and despite a few mistakes the film — to this day — holds up scientifically. (Well, time has its consequences. Had they known what computers would look like a mere 30 years later, HAL would doubtless have been much, much different).

    Nolan is either naive enough, or arrogant enough, to invite direct comparison of his movie with 2001. Those who liked his film, and like his other work, shouldn’t be dismayed, then, when critics accept that invitation and find the comparison wanting. Interstellar WAS incoherent, and utterly unscientific. Nolan may have gotten a few details right (several scientists have favorably commented on what the wormhole looks like), but overall the film is a joke if the measure is its faithfulness to science.

  • ocdhd

    1) Only in a movie like this will you find two scientists explaining to each other how a wormhole works to make distances between objects shorter. Gee, I never saw 2 doctors speaking to each other about a band-aid being able to stop the bleeding.

    2) Only in a movie like this, will you see 1 black man, a few white men, and no sign of any other human type or what we call races. Only 1 female.

    3) Only in a movie like this will you find emotions playing a bigger part than practical common sense.

    4) American flag everywhere. Enough said.

    If the film was scientifically accurate, it would not appeal to the masses who have the money to spend for entertainment, and the film would go bust. To make money, they have to dumb the films down, until humanity is smart enough to want smarter things, and want to spend their money on obtaining knowledge. Until the time is right for humanity to find entertainment in the quest for knowledge and truth, humans who create entertainment will continue to create it for dumb humans. I’d say the movie was smart, because it’s creators are now rich, and can afford to do the things they enjoy with their family, while smiling “Suckers” at the rest of you actually thought this was a good movie.

  • Jack Lewis

    ‘Mankind was born on earth. It was never meant to die here.’
    So this is super dumb to you?
    Tell that to all those who have explored the world, established new colonies and built cities. Man should just have stayed in caves, that would not have been stupid at all.

    “Who says? How can anyone know what nature’s intentions might be?”
    Nature has no intention, things like intentions don’t apply to concepts like nature but particular beings. Still it hasn’t stopped a ton of artists, writers, film makers to create stories and speculate as though nature had some. A gazillion religions think they know what is meant for man too. You would think a critic would understand something that basic but maybe this is just not very clever critic caught inside an not that smart critic and no one is trying to get out…

    I didn’t even particularly like this movie, it has tons of flaws but no one will find out what those were from this “review”. This critic being to busy calling things she professes to not have understood, dumb.

  • Fawadshah

    I beg to disagree. This movie was far better than any Star Trek Movie by a huge margin. Very intelligent movie with 99% of the ideas presented were scientifically accurate and possible in theoretical physics. I think this was one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life.

  • xy123z321

    I’m a physicist who loves 2001: A Space Odyssey (above all), Star Trek, A Clockwork Orange, Blade Runner, etc. I have to agree with the reviewer. I found myself laughing at the silly and forced emotion. And confusing…! With all it surreal elements, 2001 was clear, concise, and straightforward compared to the mess of a movie that Interstellar is.

  • Pete

    Excellent review but it’s actually even more stupid if you do assess the science. Relativity is dealt with reasonably but the most monster-sized anomaly is the idea that humanity in the future is somehow in a position to send back cryptic morse code messages to save itself in the first place – an absurdity so vast a black hole could fit in comfortably. It’s all so retarded it actually makes 2010 (the rip off 2001 sequel) seem intelligent. Almost.

  • Bhupinder Singh

    You’re an idiot with no clue whatsoever. Interstellar is one of the best movies ever made. I’m so disgusted I came across your article. Ironically enough, I typed the words “Isn’t Interstellar the best movie ever?” in Google Search and, guess what? smartass, your article was among the ones that came up in the search results.