So back from the movies. Couldn't keep myself away from a few spoilers before watching the movie so the movie was not much of a surprise to me. But the 2nd half was way engrossing than 1st as I had expected. Read this thread completely. And apart from the explanation given by sam_738844 I think I understood a lot of them.
Looks like Nolan likes to mess (another good word would be the F word) with viewers mind and that's why he creates movies such as this and Inception. It also occurs to me that Time Manipulation is his favorite subject. And that's one thing which is making Nolan one of my favorite director after Spielberg.
As for the Interstellar itself, the movie did try to do things which are bigger than itself. I think among all the reviews on this thread sam_738844 explains it the best. Hence quoting here again:
... a great director should not forget the fundamentalist's tenet, a movie is a visual experience. A movie that is so rich in data, so incredibly dull and drab in CGI, that these don't couple! When its a movie about interstellar space travels, spinning black holes, time dilation and perceptive space-time paradoxes, it should be a movie where people's jaw will drop in awe by the CGI, not a movie where fixed camera shots and half-baked panoramic space images.
And Nolan...its nothing new ok! Gravity is way ahead of this movie if you take the experience about the SPACE into account. This could be the movie of the century with that mind-boggling story and information that is so incontrovertibly true and enigmatic in the history of particle and astrophysics. This could be the dogma of all sci-fi movies. But Nolan you played low-ball again in the graphic effects , I noticed this in Dark Knight series too, it dint hurt much. But for Interstellar, its unforgivable.
The CGI was not only minimal but it felt a little too minimal. A minimalistic CGI can be a good thing if the focus is on story. But I think the film lacked in this department too. Fixed camera shots were too many and too bad. I feel comparison with Gravity and Contact is fair. Gravity was surreal for its "Space" experience. Contact was good in Space exploration. Heck I would say Contact is still miles apart in "Space exploration" story. (Contact was one of the film that made me fall in love with this genre and made me like Jodie Foster).
So what we can say about Interstellar. The science? I can't comment about that yet since I have been out of touch with Science for years now. And will do after I watch that Discovery channel documentary about the movie. But the film did lead to many real life discoveries so that can't be too bad.
Anyhow, some things I understood from the movie (and correct me if I learned wrong):
1. Wormholes if they exist will look Spherical cause you know its actually a circle in 3D.
2. Blackhole in the movie was created Only for cooper to communicate with her daughter.
3. We should not allow children to play football when they are traveling in a cylindrical spaceship cause it will break windows of houses directly above.
4. We should not do anything in our bedroom that we don't want our parents to see in case they happen to keep an eye on us while stuck in singularity. (oh sh!t)
As for someone who was wondering how the astronaut could walk on water, have you considered that water was just 3 feet high instead of pondering about the composition of the water!?
Also, IIRC it was the Robot who provided the coordinates to NASA to Cooper when he was in singularity. So there's no time paradox here.
Also, as pointed by someone that Cooper could have written a book instead of trying to communicate with her daughter was he really being serious? You do know that he could have only used Gravity to communicate since only Gravity can transcendence Space and Time!
On a lighter note, don't know why but I think Interstellar was perfect to be named as "Gravity". The actual Gravity could have been named "Zero Gravity" or something.
)
