Escape to the Movies: Interstellar - Doesn't Live Up To Its Own Name

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,077
1,168
118
Country
Argentina
PunkRex said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
PunkRex said:
Bob doesn't really like Interstellar ---> Interstellar was made by Nolan ---> Nolan made the Batman films ---> Batman is DC ---> DC is Marvel's rival ---> Bob loves the MCU ---> Half-Life 3 confirmed???

Can we not do this today people.
No, but we can do this:

Bob reads Nolan doesn't dig post-credit stingers > Taking offense for Marvel, he creates a news post built around a misquote > He then rushes his negative critique of the week two days early to try and hurt the movie preemptively > He also rushes "Intermission" 2 days early, going on about how good Marvel's Agents of Shield is (literally - "What went right?") even though he already has a whole separate column dedicated to the show.

Look, I wasn't mind-blown by Interstellar, and I actually agree with some of the stuff Bob goes on about. But the spiteful bias displayed here reaches new levels of immaturity.
Maybe you're right, or maybe there's a reason his stuff came out early. I'm not gonna make excuses for Bob, I don't know him, but what seems immature to me is deciding someone has some sort of freaking agenda because he happens to not/like something.
You already quoted me, you know my reasoning isn't "he has an agenda because he didn't like it".
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
PunkRex said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
PunkRex said:
Bob doesn't really like Interstellar ---> Interstellar was made by Nolan ---> Nolan made the Batman films ---> Batman is DC ---> DC is Marvel's rival ---> Bob loves the MCU ---> Half-Life 3 confirmed???

Can we not do this today people.
No, but we can do this:

Bob reads Nolan doesn't dig post-credit stingers > Taking offense for Marvel, he creates a news post built around a misquote > He then rushes his negative critique of the week two days early to try and hurt the movie preemptively > He also rushes "Intermission" 2 days early, going on about how good Marvel's Agents of Shield is (literally - "What went right?") even though he already has a whole separate column dedicated to the show.

Look, I wasn't mind-blown by Interstellar, and I actually agree with some of the stuff Bob goes on about. But the spiteful bias displayed here reaches new levels of immaturity.
Maybe you're right, or maybe there's a reason his stuff came out early. I'm not gonna make excuses for Bob, I don't know him, but what seems immature to me is deciding someone has some sort of freaking agenda because he happens to not/like something.
You already quoted me, you know my reasoning isn't "he has an agenda because he didn't like it".
Maybe I was a bit condescending there, sorry, but I still don't agree with your thought chain.
 

Dandres

New member
Apr 7, 2013
118
0
0
Leave Kevin Spacey alone Bob, putting him a CoD game was the next logical step after House of Cards.

As soon as I saw that Bob did an early review of Interstellar the first thing I thought was wow he sure wants to get that movie review out of the way so he can review Disney?s/Marvels Big Hero 6 this weekend. Then he can say look guys I did movie you wanted me to review now I can do the movie I want to review.
 

Cpt. Slow

Great news everybody!
Dec 9, 2012
168
0
0
First time I heard Bob say that a film was over encumbered with intelligence. But I'm a cautionary man and would almost chalk this up to the deep rooted love that Bob has for the boys and girls of Marvel.

Yes, you are probably now preparing to hammer out a reply to this post like Ray Charles did with his piano keys. But let's be honest, Bob has admitted he has a bit of a bias towards anything that doesn't include Stan Lee's (so I assume) musky scent on it.

Thanks Bob, I have to see this film now. I will be looking forward to you 3 part episodes on the Big Picture defending your review as usual.
 

Beldaros

New member
Jan 24, 2009
376
0
0
your use of schizophrenically stuck in my head more than the review, schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personality disorder, and as a result, the use in this review was a misstep from a seemingly otherwise fairly knowledge filled individual. I can feel how petty this comment is, but it was really that hard to hear for me.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
nayuan01 said:
daxterx2005 said:
But dude, I love K-Pax, that movie ruled.
I thought the same thing. "Leave [K-Pax] alone!!"
I've never known a person who has watched K-Pax and disliked it, yet I've also never read a positive review of the movie either. I find it a simple, charming, talky movie with enough of a darker edge to counteract the more mawkish scenes. Plus I like how it is a movie about mental health which doesn't depict it as a hellish institution run by sadists.
 

Norithics

New member
Jul 4, 2013
387
0
0
Beldaros said:
your use of schizophrenically stuck in my head more than the review, schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personality disorder
I'm schizophrenic myself, but it's not improper to use the word that way. Schizophrenia's Greek roots as a word "to split" and "mind" can imply any improper metaphorical splitting, which is probably why most people still get confused that Schizophrenia is MPD. So, not wrong in a literary sense, but still good to know medically.

As for the rest of the review, I thought he was pretty fair, and the usual mob of "rabble rabble Moviebob is terrible" has marched out their old, tired crap. He's a critic, criticism is subjective, get over it.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Doesn't live up to its own name?!

That's some weaponsgrade bs.

This movie already redeemed itself with imagery like this.


The first time a Black Hole has actually been rendered as they might look if we travelled out there to see it with our own eyes. (Cygnus X1 might be a candidate)

They sure as hell don't look like this.

 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
"Why won't they accept video games as a serious artistic medium"

I dunno, why won't they?















Maybe because they haven't played any.

I'm getting kind of sick of Bob acting like games still have something to prove; video games proved their artistic merit a long time ago, and nobody could deny that if they bothered to pay attention.

Holding COD up as an argument against games as art is ridiculous. What, because COD isn't high art, therefore other video games are excluded from being high art?

I suppose Transformers has undone all of history's great films by virtue of being popular and not as good as they were; from now on nobody will take film seriously, because now only Transformers exists.

Anyone still refusing to take video games seriously has their head up their ass.
 

phoamslinger

New member
Nov 7, 2014
1
0
0
I went to see the Interstellar last night. My kids took my grandson to see Big Hero 6. They walked out of the theater gushing about how "it was a marvel movie" and how much I would have liked it. I walked out wondering how badly Bob was going to pan Interstellar.

He pretty much hit every point except for one: I saw most of the plot twists right from almost the start, and then had to sit through 140 minutes of movie to get to the reveals. Watchable but not good + long = worse.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
So the film could of been good but it got weighted down by the realism of scientify logic of space? That's good to know. Honestly I would of been more interested in the film itself if it was direct by Spielberg as intended.
 

The Deadpool

New member
Dec 28, 2007
295
0
0
" but adhering as closely as possible to hard science: So we see wormholes, unexplored planets, singularities and even extra-dimensional space realized with unprecedented fidelity to what we can extrapolate they'd actually look like"

You know, the REAL sad part of it all? They STILL got most of the science WRONG.

Particularly the time dilation thing, which was such an important part of the plot...
 

walsfeo

New member
Feb 17, 2010
314
0
0
Daaaah Whoosh said:
I might still want to see this movie, if just for that whole "science fiction, but realism" thing. That sounds pretty cool, and I'm pretty easily fooled by failed attempts at emotion.
Yeah, I agree. I'm interested in the science info-dumps, and I'd like to see it. Then again I read a lot of hard SF.

I'm hoping the emotional stretches don't cripple the rest of it.
 

Meight08

*Insert Funny Title*
Feb 16, 2011
817
0
0
I just got back from the movie, and I can't disagree more with what Bob is saying. This was the greatest movie I've seen this year. The effects, the acting, the scenario's. It felt like love was being made to my brain.

If you have even the smallest interest in sci-fi, you NEED to see this movie for yourself
 

Gamer87

New member
Nov 22, 2013
87
0
0
Roelof Wesselius said:
I just got back from the movie, and I can't disagree more with what Bob is saying. This was the greatest movie I've seen this year. The effects, the acting, the scenario's. It felt like love was being made to my brain.

If you have even the smallest interest in sci-fi, you NEED to see this movie for yourself
Definitely! The best film of the year and the best film in a long time.

I also just came back from seeing it and sure it has got flaws (i explains a bit too much to a presumed stupid audience who's incapable of wrapping their minds around good hard sci-fi), but as a whole - wow, just wow.

I found it deeply touching, awe-inspiring and beautiful. ALL THE FEELS made me overlook the small things that might be annoying to some. The soundtrack was apropriately dramatic - after all this is about the survival of our entire species, and things can not get too overly epic when that's what's at stake. This is sounding so pretentious, but I really felt it depicted the beautiful, flawed truth of human nature, our strengths and weaknesses.

It would have been just as good without the twist, but if Nolan wants to make it complex like he always does -okay, I can't complain when he's made such a strong, beautiful film.

This film really moved me deeply and I would recommend it highly. Sorry again if I sound like an idiot, but THE FEELS!
 

Meight08

*Insert Funny Title*
Feb 16, 2011
817
0
0
Gamer87 said:
Roelof Wesselius said:
I just got back from the movie, and I can't disagree more with what Bob is saying. This was the greatest movie I've seen this year. The effects, the acting, the scenario's. It felt like love was being made to my brain.

If you have even the smallest interest in sci-fi, you NEED to see this movie for yourself
Definitely! The best film of the year and the best film in a long time.

I also just came back from seeing it and sure it has got flaws (i explains a bit too much to a presumed stupid audience who's incapable of wrapping their minds around good hard sci-fi), but as a whole - wow, just wow.

I found it deeply touching, awe-inspiring and beautiful. ALL THE FEELS made me overlook the small things that might be annoying to some. The soundtrack was apropriately dramatic - after all this is about the survival of our entire species, and things can not get too overly epic when that's what's at stake. This is sounding so pretentious, but I really felt it depicted the beautiful, flawed truth of human nature, our strengths and weaknesses.

It would have been just as good without the twist, but if Nolan wants to make it complex like he always does -okay, I can't complain when he's made such a strong, beautiful film.

This film really moved me deeply and I would recommend it highly. Sorry again if I sound like an idiot, but THE FEELS!
?Do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rage at close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.?
This movie was pure ecstasy for me when I watched it. Not a moment went by when I wasn't enjoying the story, in tears or nearly having an awesome induced, brain overload.

"love transcends space and time." It sounds cheesy, but it's true! Love will always be with you, no matter where in space and time you are. It's not pseudoscience like Bob implied. It's a philosophical statement, that's one of the most beautiful things I've seen in any movie
 

Gamer87

New member
Nov 22, 2013
87
0
0
Roelof Wesselius said:
?Do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rage at close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.?
This movie was pure ecstasy for me when I watched it. Not a moment went by when I wasn't enjoying the story, in tears or nearly having an awesome induced, brain overload.

"love transcends space and time." It sounds cheesy, but it's true! Love will always be with you, no matter where in space and time you are. It's not pseudoscience like Bob implied. It's a philosophical statement, that's one of the most beautiful things I've seen in any movie
That quote...! Goosebumps.

The cheesy bits about love was really good, but what really got to me was the frailty of our existence, the desperate struggle for mankind's survival, helped and hindered by our own nature. It gives some perspective and new appreciation for life and for love. I really hope we make it as a species.

It may be stereotypical philosophical stuff, but this was one of those movies that really makes you think, that makes an impact.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I didn't have high hopes with this at all. It was so in your face that it created a ridiculous and unattainable levels of expectation.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
Just got back from watching it. You explained it perfectly when likening Christopher Nolan to a computer. If I was to say his movies lacked something it would be 'warmth' or 'happiness'. His movies are fantastic for the most part but also feel cold and sterile, like a machine made it instead of a person. This was a good attempt by him at making it emotional but yeah, it doesn't really work. The movie did feel bloated and the third act made no sense.

However, Inception is a weaker film than this *raises flame shield*
 

SandroTheMaster

New member
Apr 2, 2009
166
0
0
The Deadpool said:
" but adhering as closely as possible to hard science: So we see wormholes, unexplored planets, singularities and even extra-dimensional space realized with unprecedented fidelity to what we can extrapolate they'd actually look like"

You know, the REAL sad part of it all? They STILL got most of the science WRONG.

Particularly the time dilation thing, which was such an important part of the plot...
It might have been wrong, but Nolan certainly wanted to show broad strokes of the stuff out there in space and unfortunately took some liberties. He wanted to show a black hole, but he didn't want give the characters proper propulsion to visit one and still visit a habitable place. He wanted them to struggle for fuel and energy. He wanted to show some fantastical but still viable alien planets (not that ridiculous "the sky is purple, therefore alien... just ignore the gases needed to have it purple"). He wanted to show the effects of dilated time and relativistic physics, but didn't want it to be a constant effect that close to the black-hole, but a situational hazard.

In fairness, I had much less trouble suspending my disbelief in this movie than many other Sci-Fi movies, INCLUDING 2001 (with which I always struggle to stay fully awake).

No magical unexplained gravity inside the ship? Check.

No "scientific discovery" leading directly to "instant practical application"? Check.

No evil robots because technology is evil? Check.

No evil technology because technology is evil? Check (it is implied the plague killing crops is naturally occurring and the resentment is more on the excesses of the past (current present) when they have so little than "technology killed us")

I can forgive the weirdly specific time dilation, what bothered me more was the ease with which they visited planets. They obviously needed tons of fuel to escape earth, so technology hadn't advanced that much (even though they were supposedly transporting more components to the main ship). And yet their Ranger shuttles could make planet fall and escape orbit multiple times without refueling. Especially because the gravity of the first one was 1.3 Gs. Meanwhile I could ignore how these planets could be so stable that close to a black hole (giant constant tsunamis on a water covered planet was still relatively tame, but it's proximity to the black hole really should have ruled it out altogether anyway, but you know, tension!)