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

[vagabondwillsmile]

I had high hopes for this movie, but I also had a my suspicions - and this review seems to have confirmed them. What is wrong with Hollywood and sci-fi of late? I think the most recently released sci-fi movie I saw and though it was good was Moon. And that is a hell of a movie; but so unrecognized and under everybody's radar (Pandorum and Solaris are also underrated in my opinion). But then there are these visually stunning blockbuster spectacles like this and Gravity that have previews making the audience that gets excited about this kind of stuff THINK, "Awesome! High-concept sci-fi, here I come!". When the final product is anything but...

I'll watch Big Hero 6 instead!

 

[PunkRex]

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.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

I'm glad someone else is noticing this. It's baffling to me the lengths Bob's gone to lambast Nolan over....well, just about anything, really.

Why does he have such disgust for Nolan and his filmography?

His snide jabs at the video gaming medium at the end of the video don't help either. They just make him seem angry, petty, and spiteful.

 

[Gennadios]

Wait, a movie pretending to be hard science that falls apart due to overly humanistic themes with a "just plain stupid" twist was meant to be directed by Spielberg?

You don't say.

I think I'll sit this one out.

 

[vid87]

I'm saddened that this makes perfect sense. I loved Dark Knight and Inception the first time but in trying to watch them again they just seem so dry that's it hard to get back into the headspace that made me love the bigger themes and ideas he worked with. I hate to think we've come to the point where we have to trade either emotion or thought for one another instead of finding a balance.

 

[VonBrewskie]

I see a lot of people in this thread talking about Bob not liking the film. I don't think he doesn't like the film, I think his point was that this film reminds him of a Stephen Spielberg film done through the lens of Chris Nolan. Bob says in his review that he thinks Nolan doesn't express emotion in the same way as Spielberg. I think this is why Bob mentions that he thinks Spielberg would have hit some of those emotional beats "out of the park". He pays respect to Nolan several times as a great filmmaker, either by directly calling Nolan a great filmmaker or by praising the workmanship of Interstellar. It also sounds like Bob was put off by the hard science of the film, not because it's hard science, but because it was jarring for him to see the film's hard science compete with the emotional themes trying to share space on the screen (no pun intended). This wasn't a negative review at all imo. This was a very intelligent film critic breaking down a well-made film (if a bit disappointing to said film critic) that has a lot of stuff for him to digest and talk with us about. To me, when Bob says a movie is "serviceable" that means he didn't hate the film at all. He's happy to have a movie that piques his interest and gives him (and us) an opportunity to nerd out and discuss what worked and what didn't work in the film. Like or dislike seems like a very shallow way to classify a review like this to me. Bob know's his stuff. He's very knowledgeable about films and moviemaking from what I've seen. There's no "right" or "wrong" going on here. This just an opportunity for a cool discussion and breakdown of a film Chris Nolan obviously poured his heart into. Can we try to avoid name-calling or shallow "like" or "dislike" arguments? Please? Those really go nowhere productive.

 

[wiersmaster]

I find it kinda funny that so many people assume Bob thinks the movie is bad because of Nolan, while I think it is completely reasonable that Bob thinks the movie is bad because it is a bad movie. Ironically, a big part of the reason that it is so bad is that the first part is so f*cking amazingly good.

Spoiler: spoiler because spoilers (duh)

The first part, is very good: it takes its time without feeling too long. It explains the situation and problems of Earth and shows Cooper and his relationship with his family. All of this is done very well.

The second part, in space, is some of the best and amazing and beautiful hard science-fiction I have seen in a long time. The robots are one of the (character-)highlights of this part, but it is overall awesome, though for very different reasons than part one. I didn't really mind the explaining, as I'm used to movies telling me things I already know . The plot, "twists", and surprises are very predictable (here and in part 3), but that wasn't really a problem.

Part three - starting at or just after the 'fistfight' on the planet and reaching a low point at the black hole - is where it all falls apart. Here is where I started facepalming and was just thinking WHY?! over and over. Not only is science thrown out the window (LOVE(!) is a fundamental force! Signals from inside a black hole are now possible, etc.) and are the characters suddenly stupid/have amnesia which makes this entire section feel 'dumb', but a lot of the non-science things seem like the conclusion of sub-plots that we didn't see (e.g: the doctor Murph suddenly kisses) while actual sub-plots remain without conclusion.

Most parts of the conclusion might not have been a problem if they were more consistent with the rest of the film. I would recommend watching the first ~2 hours, then turning it off and making an end up with your friends. As a whole, I think the movie might be somewhere around a 6/10, though that feels way to generous for the conclusion which is somewhere around 3 to 4/10, and way too low for the first two-thirds which scores 8 to 9/10 for me.

 

[Xenominim]

I'm really not seeing the bias out of MovieBob that so many people are claiming. Or he's a lot better at hiding it than the people who have immediately run into this thread to declare they knew he would hate it and therefore it must be good.

His review points out the movie is flawed. He specifically says it's very good on a workmanlike level and that it has a number of very good elements. He doesn't say it's perfect and it won't be going on his favorites list but he's not angry or regretting it like his Trek or Spiderman reviews. Hell the movie is getting slightly mixed reviews all over, most positive but it's as of now hitting a 74% on Rotten. So Bob's opinion is hardly some clickbait outlier. It's ridiculous how differing opinions bring out such bitterness in people, particularly when it comes to critics. If you consistently don't like a particular critics reviews, find one whose opinions match your own, that's the point, finding someone you trust to point out stuff you might like! It'd be like watching a TV show you don't like week after week purely so you can jump on to complain about it which would be...oh right, people do that all the time also. Well nevermind then.

 

[Caostotale]

I find it kinda funny that so many people assume Bob thinks the movie is bad because of Nolan, while I think it is completely reasonable that Bob thinks the movie is bad because it is a bad movie. Ironically, a big part of the reason that it is so bad is that the first part is so f*cking amazingly good.

Where have you been these past few months? Everything that doesn't accord with the entrenched tastes of the STEM master race is part of some overarching agenda or 'narrative' to ruin geek culture on the whole. Bob is certainly a colossal offender, what with all of his non-objective views towards certain movie tropes and directorial styles that the general public loves yet he doesn't personally enjoy. He doesn't realize that the true purpose of geek culture is simply to dominate the entertainment market.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't know what all you people are talking about. Bob didn't say anything in this review that was a slight against Christopher Nolan, he even said that Nolan is a very capable film maker. What he also said however is that Nolan isn't capable of delivering the kind of emotional dramas that Speilberg is known for. He didn't say this was a terrible movie, he just said it wasn't a great movie. So would all you Nolan fans just chill already?

I think it's more like

1/3 of people pissed about his deliberately click-bait news piece

1/3 of people are Nolan or DC fans claiming bias

1/3 of people hate Bob for one of many reasons:
A) Social Justice Warrior (I WANT TO KILL THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS "SJW" SHIT)
B) His complete and total devotion to Nintendo and hate of everything else (Understandable)
C) Pretentiousness (Understandable)
D) One of the many colossally stupid things he has said or done (Understandable).

Well that last third I invite to take their feet out of their mouths now.

 

[WarpedLord]

I don't know what all you people are talking about. Bob didn't say anything in this review that was a slight against Christopher Nolan, he even said that Nolan is a very capable film maker. What he also said however is that Nolan isn't capable of delivering the kind of emotional dramas that Speilberg is known for. He didn't say this was a terrible movie, he just said it wasn't a great movie. So would all you Nolan fans just chill already?

I think it's more like

1/3 of people pissed about his deliberately click-bait news piece

1/3 of people are Nolan or DC fans claiming bias

1/3 of people hate Bob for one of many reasons:
A) Social Justice Warrior (I WANT TO KILL THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS "SJW" SHIT)
B) His complete and total devotion to Nintendo and hate of everything else (Understandable)
C) Pretentiousness (Understandable)
D) One of the many colossally stupid things he has said or done (Understandable).

You, sir, have hit the proverbial nail on the head (other than I think the % of Nolan/DC Fanboys is a bit higher than 33%...).

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Great, now I can't get the idea of Neil DeGrasse Tyson bursting into the homes of writers with a whiteboard and markers to chastise them for getting things wrong in it.

I would watch the hell out of that movie.

You might enjoy this.

I don't know if he did, but I sure as shit laughed

 

[Kyrian007]

I'm really not seeing the bias out of MovieBob that so many people are claiming. Or he's a lot better at hiding it than the people who have immediately run into this thread to declare they knew he would hate it and therefore it must be good.

His review points out the movie is flawed. He specifically says it's very good on a workmanlike level and that it has a number of very good elements. He doesn't say it's perfect and it won't be going on his favorites list but he's not angry or regretting it like his Trek or Spiderman reviews. Hell the movie is getting slightly mixed reviews all over, most positive but it's as of now hitting a 74% on Rotten. So Bob's opinion is hardly some clickbait outlier. It's ridiculous how differing opinions bring out such bitterness in people, particularly when it comes to critics. If you consistently don't like a particular critics reviews, find one whose opinions match your own, that's the point, finding someone you trust to point out stuff you might like! It'd be like watching a TV show you don't like week after week purely so you can jump on to complain about it which would be...oh right, people do that all the time also. Well nevermind then.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this. Bob hasn't shown undue amounts of hate towards Nolan in the past (MoS WAS shit, sorry Nolanites) and anyone who saw his Dark Knight review knows this. Actually I've seen more negative reviews of Interstellar in the press this week than I have positive reviews. I've seen at least 2 print reviews with the phrase "in space no one can hear you yawn."

As much as it descends into the level of "I know you are but what am I," I see all the negativity directed at Bob not as objective criticism, but rather as agenda-driven against Bob's standing on the recent stupid gamergate kerfuffle. Pot, Kettle, thy name is Bobhater and your opinions are noted and quickly discarded. And as little as I care about the whole gamergate thing as a whole the gamergate guys can discard my opinion just as quickly, as I'll admit I haven't seen Bob make a comment about gamergate that I couldn't at least partially agree with. I don't agree with all of Bob's reviews, but to dismiss his review as "agenda driven bias?" I just don't see any real evidence of that in any of his reviews, even the ones I don't agree with. Generally I've found accusations of "media bias" thrown around mostly by A: people who don't really seem to know what the term means or B: people trying to cover up a petty argument using another that seems somehow "nobler."

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.