Interstellar trailers (updated)

thanks to Aamirsfan..

thanks to Qalandar..

thanks to Shinji..

thanks to Bliss..


104 Responses to “Interstellar trailers (updated)”

  1. Nolan and Hans Zimmer together again. NO OTHER reason needed to buy a ticket for this one..1 year wait is TOO long though..


  2. Sadly nobody seems to be interested in this : –

    [added to post]


  3. “Indian Surveliance Drone” , the original script had a Chinese Drone.. Is Irfan Khan lurking in the cast somewhere?


  4. Satyam, u must have seen the trailer alongwith Godzilla, how was the reaction ?


  5. This was originally a script Spielberg was directing. Although I love Chris Nolan, it’s amazing how mainstream he has become…from Memento to the Batman movies, now a Spielberg script.


    • Very shallow way of looking at Nolan’s career. Memento was his first movie with small budget. I don’t think anyone needs to add any further praises on Batman films and the director’s addition to the super hero genre. Also, Prestige, Inception are not really mainstream films and neither Intersteller looks to be one.

      Moreoever, Nolan was only interested in the script’s idea(as there wasn’t any full script proposed to Spielberg, only the idea was pitched by studio) and he rewrote his own version of the script which his brother worked on it and then took the project on. I doubt there would have been anything more than the concept between this script and Speildberg’s script which was to be made years back.


  6. I saw it with Godzilla…people are looking forward to this one. My Fall movie.


  7. Shoot me for saying this, but I am far more kicked about Fincher’s Gone Girl-

    [post created]


  8. The trailer is interesting, but reminds me of Jodie Foster’s Contact from the 1990s…


    • I think that is intentional. The idea about this film is from same writers who wrote Contact and also the leading actor -McConaughey is from Contact movie.


  9. RajRoshan Says:

    Great trailer…bit surprising here as Nolan this time seems to be very much involved with emotional drama alongside sci-fi


  10. NY Times:

    Off to the Stars, With Grief, Dread and Regret
    Movie Review: ‘Interstellar,’ Christopher Nolan’s Search for a New Planet NYT Critics’ Pick
    By A. O. SCOTTNOV. 4, 2014

    Like the great space epics of the past, Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” distills terrestrial anxieties and aspirations into a potent pop parable, a mirror of the mood down here on Earth. Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” blended the technological awe of the Apollo era with the trippy hopes and terrors of the Age of Aquarius. George Lucas’s first “Star Wars” trilogy, set not in the speculative future but in the imaginary past, answered the malaise of the ’70s with swashbuckling nostalgia. “Interstellar,” full of visual dazzle, thematic ambition, geek bait and corn (including the literal kind), is a sweeping, futuristic adventure driven by grief, dread and regret.

    Trying to jot down notes by the light of the Imax screen, where lustrous images (shot by Hoyte van Hoytema and projected from real 70-millimeter film) flickered, I lost count of how many times the phrase “I’m sorry” was uttered — by parents to children, children to parents, sisters to brothers, scientists to astronauts and astronauts to one another. The whole movie can be seen as a plea for forgiveness on behalf of our foolish, dreamy species. We messed everything up, and we feel really bad about it. Can you please give us another chance?

    The possibility that such a “you” might be out there, in a position to grant clemency, is one of the movie’s tantalizing puzzles. Some kind of message seems to be coming across the emptiness of space and along the kinks in the fabric of time, offering a twinkle of hope amid humanity’s rapidly darkening prospects. For most of “Interstellar,” the working hypothesis is that a benevolent alien race, dwelling somewhere on the far side of a wormhole near one of the moons of Saturn, is sending data across the universe, encrypted advice that just may save us if we can decode it fast enough.

    What our planet and species need saving from is a slow-motion environmental catastrophe. Rather than explain how this bleak future arrived through the usual montages of mayhem, Mr. Nolan (who wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan) drops us quietly into what looks like a fairly ordinary reality. We are in a rural stretch of North America, a land of battered pickup trucks, dusty bluejeans and wind-burned farmers scanning the horizon for signs of a storm. Talking-head testimony from old-timers chronicles what sounds like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, until we spot a laptop on the table being set for family dinner.

    The head of the family in question is Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a widower who lives with his two children and his father-in-law (John Lithgow). Once a NASA pilot, Cooper now grows corn, the only thing that will grow after a blight has wiped out most of the planet’s other crops. The human population has shrunk to a desperate remnant, but the survivors cling to the habits and rituals of normal life. For now, there is plenty of candy and soda and beer (thanks to all that corn); there are parent-teacher conferences after school; and Cooper’s farmhouse is full of books and toys. But the blight is spreading, the dust storms are growing worse, and the sense of an ending is palpable.

    The Nolans cleverly conflate scientific denialism with technophobia, imagining a fatalistic society that has traded large ambition for small-scale problem solving and ultimate resignation. But Christopher Nolan, even in his earlier, more modestly budgeted films, has never been content with the small scale. His imagination is large; his eye seeks out wide, sweeping vistas; and if he believes in anything, it is ambition. As it celebrates the resistance to extinction — taking as its touchstone Dylan Thomas’s famous villanelle “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night,” with its repeated invocation of “rage against the dying of the light” — “Interstellar” becomes an allegory of its own aspirations, an argument for grandeur, scale and risk, on screen and off.

    Dick Cavett, a son of Nebraska, used to ask (quoting Abe Burrows), “How you gonna keep ’em down on the farm, after they’ve seen the farm?” Cooper and “Interstellar” are clearly marked for something other than agrarian pursuits, but the first section of the movie is the richest and most haunting, establishing a delicately emotional tone and clear moral and dramatic stakes for the planet-hopping to follow. Cooper is devoted to his children, in particular his daughter, Murph, played as a young girl by the preternaturally alert and skeptical Mackenzie Foy and as an adult by Jessica Chastain. When her father is recruited for a secret NASA mission to search for a habitable new planet, Murph is devastated by his departure. Her subsequent scientific career is both a tribute to his memory and a way of getting even.

    The Nolans are fond of doubled characters and mirrored plots, and so “Interstellar” is built around twinned father-daughter stories. Among Cooper’s colleagues on board the spaceship is Dr. Brand (Anne Hathaway), whose father, also called Dr. Brand (Michael Caine), has developed the theories behind their quest. He and Murph remain on the ground, crunching the numbers and growing older in the usual earthly way, while Cooper and the younger Brand, thanks to relativity, stay pretty much the same age. (Cooper’s son, Tom, played by Timothée Chalamet as a boy, matures into Casey Affleck). The two pairs of daughters and dads perform variations on the theme of paternal and filial love, finding delicate and moving passages of loyalty, rebellion, disillusionment and acceptance.

    A lot of other stuff happens, too, as it tends to out in space. A cynical critic might suppose that the last two hours of “Interstellar” were composed in a fit of spoiler hysteria. Nondisclosure pleas from the studio have been unusually specific. Forget about telling you what happens: I’m not even supposed to tell you who’s in the thing, aside from the people you’ve seen on magazine covers. I guess I can disclose that Cooper and Brand are accompanied by two other astronauts, played by a witty, scene-stealing David Gyasi and a deadpan Wes Bentley, and also by a wry robot who speaks in the voice of Bill Irwin.

    The touches of humor those characters supply are welcome, if also somewhat stingily rationed. Nobody goes to a Christopher Nolan movie for laughs. But it is hard to imagine that his fans — who represent a fairly large segment of the world’s population — will be disappointed by “Interstellar.” I haven’t always been one of them, but I’ve always thought that his skill and ingenuity were undeniable. He does not so much transcend genre conventions as fulfill them with the zeal of a true believer. It may be enough to say that “Interstellar” is a terrifically entertaining science-fiction movie, giving fresh life to scenes and situations we’ve seen a hundred times before, and occasionally stumbling over pompous dialogue or overly portentous music. (In general, the score, by Hans Zimmer, is exactly as portentous as it needs to be.)

    Of course, the film is more than that. It is in the nature of science fiction to aspire to more, to ascend fearlessly toward the sublime. You could think of “Interstellar,” which has a lot to say about gravity, as the anti-“Gravity.” That movie, which would fit inside this one twice, stripped away the usual sci-fi metaphysics, presenting space travel as an occasion for quiet wonder and noisy crisis management. Mr. Nolan takes the universe and eternity itself as his subject and his canvas, brilliantly exploiting cinema’s ability to shift backward and sideways in time (through flashbacks and cross cuts), even as it moves relentlessly forward.

    But “Gravity” and “Interstellar” are both ultimately about the longing for home, about voyages into the unknown that become odysseys of return. And “Interstellar” may take its place in the pantheon of space movies because it answers an acute earthly need, a desire not only for adventure and novelty but also, in the end, for comfort.


  11. Some New Age stuff at the end which is par for the course for just about every sci-fi film of this sort (including 2001) but overall (and specially on an authentic IMAX screen) this was one of the most incredible cinematic experiences of my life. One of those rare films that captures the very essence of cinematic wonder. And it has throughout a strong emotional undercurrent. Nolan treads on some well-established schlocky terrain but manages to make it genuinely meaningful. As for the visuals or the score (specially the former) for that people just have to watch it! This is really a movie to be experienced and proves once again that even in this most hyper-technological of ages where one is exposed to so much on the screen that it’s hard to get too impressed by anything that a director with true vision can nonetheless break through. I loved Gravity but I liked this a lot more.


    • A brilliant comment there Satyam
      I don’t ‘criticise’ u only !!
      The problem is my alliance with ‘truth’
      I have to praise good stuff
      But this short succinct note on interstellar says much more than its length (as always no pun intended!)
      Deserves a separate post
      May check this out (after tackling the ‘gone’ girl)


    • Check out BR’s post. He absolutely doesnt like Nolan, I must say 🙂


    • “….this was one of the most incredible cinematic experiences of my life.”

      +1. This was for me the experience that most people described when they were discussing Avatar. Just a jaw-dropping audiovisual ride on a (true) IMAX screen. There’s a good deal of schmaltz here, some of Nolan’s usual issues crop up (I’m referring really to a general tendency towards portentousness) but it somehow worked for me, not least because of how completely immersive it is. For a film nearly three hours long it also flies by, just very well paced, and for the first time there’s a lightness and sense of humor that’s otherwise all but absent in Nolan’s filmography. I’ll be seeing this again on IMAX.

      And while it does remind one of how useful a strong vision can be in rejuvenating the cinema-going experience, it simultaneously underscores the sad realization that cinema increasingly and with some exceptions really only “matters” to any significant degree on these islands of experience, these event films, that crop up every couple years. Films like Avatar, like Gravity, like Interstellar seem to be the only thing “charging” the discussion of cinema as a vital cultural experience, at least for the general public.


    • This is a fair read though I’d still disagree. I think Nolan is narratively often the sort of filmmaker Rangan describes here, the guy trying to do too much (this has been true even for the Batman films and it’s equally true of the prestige even if Rangan thinks otherwise.. one just has to compare this with the Illusionist to see the difference). But he’s never struck me otherwise as a director who’s taking things too seriously in the ‘pretentious’ sense of the term. This might seem like a contradiction but I think there’s a difference. And in some ways there’s certainly a common thread that runs through Memento and Inception and Interstellar and bits of it elsewhere in his filmmaking too. So he does have a set of concerns. But at the ‘blockbuster’ level, including the Batman films, I’d say that Interstellar represents the best marriage of the Nolan ‘aesthetic’ (for want of a better word) than anything else he’s done. I certainly loved Gravity but I liked this even before. Because Nolan aims for a certain emotional register here, both in terms of the ‘soaring’ qualities of space travel and even moreso with the essential relationship that undergirds the film, that worked very much for me. Again even accepting that there is perhaps something essentially ‘maudlin’ (to quote one of the critics) in some of these premises Nolan pulls it off here. To be honest I always find the New Age stuff a bit more problematic but then a sci-fi film that tries to establish a ‘realistic’ perhaps necessarily ends up here. On this score an example that comes to mind beyond all the usual ones everyone cites is the much underrated Contact (though Zemeckis is no Nolan!) and which also ends up with the same problem. also starring Mcconaughey! But again contra Rangan I’d say that for the most part this is Nolan’s lightest film. It might seem strange to characterize any Nolan work this way but I’d insist, even as a fan of the Batman films or the Prestige (less so of Inception), that is in addition to everything else Nolan’s easiest watch.


  12. I’d make one other point here that’s fairly obviously but it worth repeating. Going from Interstellar to even some of the best Bollywood films (let’s say Ra One here) in terms of SFX is like going from the space age to the stone age. I mean this quite literally. And one could come up with other examples here at each end. Obviously there’s an economic reason here (160m was spent on Interstellar, pre-marketing.. you can’t make a film for a fraction of that cost and expect similar results.. but this is only part of the story.. because the ‘know-how’ doesn’t exist at that level in India, or for that matter in East Asia, currently.. more precisely if it could be done cheaper in India or HK Hollywood would be going to these places! It might happen in the future but we’re not even close to that point.. put differently the equivalent of the Mars program doesn’t exist anywhere in cinema.. so you’re not going to get the equivalent of Gravity or something for a fraction of the cost anytime soon in India) but there are also other important factors. The level of research, the attention to detail and so forth come about only when there’s a film culture, this at the very least, that rewards this aspect of cinema and doesn’t judge everything in a bankrupt fashion following the box office returns. And so a lot of Interstellar is obviously sci-fi but the theoretical physics behind it is very much cutting edge. So for instance presently you cannot cross wormholes in space the way it’s shown in the film but that you would need to do something of this sort if you ever hoped to get to a galaxy that far away is not questionable. Again on the existing theoretical accounts. Nolan educated himself in these matters. You have to take these things seriously. It’s not just about SFX. Any number of Hollywood blockbusters do that. A true vision is something else. For Avatar Cameron had a special Canon camera developed because he felt the existing technology couldn’t really capture his vision. One could multiply these examples. If you’re doing Desai or something it doesn’t matter (there people are completely wrong to call the films ‘illogical’ or whatever.. to make that claim here is to miss the point). This is why Enthiran was such a worthwhile effort. Yes a lot of SFX were very good by Indian standards but ultimately the film doesn’t depend on this. It does much more. It tries to tell an old masala story, it tries to offer the ultimate homage to a legendary star using this vehicle. And Shankar has a certain imagination here. Actually if he were in Hollwyood or had those resources he’d be quite an extraordinary director (I wouldn’t say the same for everyone!). But again when one hears foolish claims like the one Rakesh Roshan makes on Krrish being like Hollywood or whatever the problem isn’t just that there’s a gulf on the SFX but that there’s a much greater conceptual gulf here. And this ties into a larger cultural trope where the ‘West’ is seen ‘through Indian eyes’ (not just Indian, this is a classic structure even elsewhere) as a technological paradise but the ‘spirit’ (let’s risk that word here) that animates that technology in the deepest ‘cultural’ or ‘educational’ or ‘mindset’ sense is totally missed or not understood.

    On a related note apparently the green screen wasn’t used here at all because Nolan wanted the surroundings to be very physically present everywhere.


  13. I have been criticising rangan for a while but it seems rangan has been reading and acting on these criticisms

    rangan is slowly coming around it
    He has pointed out the same issues that i had with inception , TDKR & Nolans attempts at inflating genres

    read bits of brangans review –havent seen interstellar
    some good points by sat yam here but I’m with rangan here

    “He throws science at us (gravitational anomalies! particle physics! quantum mechanics!).”
    ROFLOL totally agree with Rangan !!
    rangans IIT background here helps him see thru all this (presumed) pretence

    the same points I’ve been making for ages—-welcome to the club –rangan u r (nearly) there….


  14. Saw it a second time today and was very glad I did!


  15. Watched it two nights in a row..I’ll most probably see it one more time.

    It is in my opinion the best sci-fi movie of this (or probably any) generation.

    The two movies that can be compared to it are:

    Contact: On the science and theory

    2001 A space Odyssey: On vision and visuals.

    Interstellar is just a perfect blend of science fiction, theoretical physics and a grand vision


    • Last 30 mins were really disappointing here, with too much going on and very less explanation. Ending looks like abrupt to me while more time was invested in creating emotional core with main characters.
      @Satyam Please create a separate post on it.


      • The ending definitely had a schmaltzy-ness to it, but it wasn’t as if this came out of nowhere. Much of the first third of this film was about the filial relationships here. So the tone and interests were established deeply enough to make that ending easy to buy. Really the film operates, as many of Nolan’s non-Dark Knight films have, on the premise of a fractured timeline, a fragmented state or even “plane” of existence, and the effect this has on the characters within a given narrative. In this case estranged family members are the central concern (even the siblings on earth seem to have gone decades without seeing each other) and the sci-fi is a (magnificently rendered) canvas for this stuff to play out in a pretty unique way.


        • “Really the film operates, as many of Nolan’s non-Dark Knight films have, on the premise of a fractured timeline, a fragmented state or even “plane” of existence, and the effect this has on the characters within a given narrative.”

          this is the best concise summation I’ve come across on Nolan’s work..


  16. Just back from Interstellar.. what a movie!! Recommended. Will put in some thoughts later.


  17. Some nitpicking on this fantasy called Interstellar:
    Actually there no need to give spoilers for this movie , but still, let me put out a note..

    spoilers ahead
    -> the Matt Daemon track – the planet looks like 40s,50s studio shoot – so fake
    -> Mr Brandy looks same age through-out the movie when all other ppl are growing up/getting older.
    -> Mr Brandy uses mechanical wheelchair when they have explored the solar system , have intelligent robots.
    -> The story is set in future or past – its mysterious. If its future, then the car and house of Mr Cooper is so old fashioned.
    -> People fighting each other and killing on another planet/outer space. Typical american wtf.
    -> Ms Brand trying to collect some device/recorder from a broken spaceship when there is a Gigantic wave coming in sea. Another wtf american typical illogical character.
    -> Matt Daemon trying trying to kill Cooper ..infact whole Matt Daemon track is unnecessary.
    -> The ending 20-30 minutes – poor CGI/VFX – whatever it is called.
    -> The Saturn looked like a picture taken from a book. Pathetic special effects.
    -> Its a fantasy I know, I dont want to pinpoint the loopholes – but still, when you are talking about time travel, relativity and quantum physics , how abt a bit of how Human heart/body will survive a wormhole travel/blackhole travel!?! (esp at the light speed)
    -> Cooper cries through his nose – well i didn’t like it; especially on big screen 😛
    -> In this movie none of the ppl who are on-board on that spaceship look qualified enough. Their talk and the way they talk abt relativity, time travel etc is so stupid and juvenile.
    -> Cooper’s daughter discovers something in binary format – then writes the equations on the blackboard with a chalk, and then writes then down on the paper – and then throws the paper shouting “Eureka!!!” . And we think our Bollywood movies are way too simplistic!!
    -> The whole sequence on earth while Cooper is diving in the black-hole is ridiculous – just to create the backdrop. To create the backdrop of how on earth also there is an unrest while Mr Cooper is getting drawned in the blackhole – his daughter is shown setting the farm on fire, there is a fight / quarrel in brother and sister etc etc. All this looked forced and exaggerated and unnecessary. If Nolan wanted to show the unrest on earth , or – rather in his Daughter’s mind – he should have shown in a subtle way.
    -> The biggest WTF of them all is – SAVING THE FUCKING HUMANITY thing which goes on through-out the movie. Without that it would have been a better fantasy ignoring all the stupid physics and biology etc.

    A fantasy about time-travel, relativity, Blackholes and wormholes, our existence; and most importantly how it all comes together in our little life…our attachment to our near and dear ones!

    end of spoilers

    End of comment


    • Overall a substandard fantasy (bogged down by Saving the Humanity shit – but still a good one if one ignores this )



    • Half of your issues will go away, if you ‘look closely’. But if one says, the whole movie is juvenile, there is nothing one can do to change that thinking. Good for you!


  18. Interstellar is not only pretentious but also very arrogant. Nolan thinks Human race is of utmost importance and the soul purpose of “they” putting the wormhole in our solar system was to save humans. Dead father talks to his daughter , traverses back in time etc. I was hoping it will end up like The Sixth Sense – a dream of some kind which will make it less arrogant – but it didn’t.


    • Mind you, I dont have problem here in time travel, quantum physics or relativity etc. Just the arrogance and the cheesy way its handled. Saving the Humanity.


      • So, the film and concept is good and the director is inept of handing it? Yeah i totally agree with you on this, Rakesh Roshan would have been better choice to direct Interstellar than some Nolan guy.


  19. @satyam,

    If you are too shy or ashamed of talking to me or reply to this “seemingly” stupid comment, Maybe you can follow the SB on NG – where I did have chat with “Rex” – an “expert” on western / sci-fi / supernatural films – I have met online. Ever!


    • Not sure why you missed the part that said this was a ‘sci-fi’ film..


      • Not sure why you missed me saying that my issue is not with sci-fi concept of quantum physics/relativity and time travel. Hope you read on what I pointed out as most arrogant and cheesy part in the movie. Saving the Humanity.


        • not really sure what’s so strange about this idea. In any case it’s hardly the first time ‘humanity’ has been saved in a movie!


        • ritzritz,

          Saving the humanity maybe cheesy for may not be for others. What’s the big deal? I think you are missing the most reasonable explanation for what you are calling cheesy and arrogant- Human beings by their fundamental nature consider themselves the most superior race and its no surprise if we reach a situation that the world’s ending, then we’d think of saving humanity.


          • Lol, instead of finding ways to better the earth go and spoil another planet? Btw world will never end. Mankind will.

            Not every movie out there which is on science/space/timetravel has to save mankind.


          • I think Hollywood is obsessed with saving mankind or saving Americans. This is the excuse for all these types of movies. Just forget the message and enjoy the fiction.

            Mankind is the root cause of many evils like global warming. And there maybe mankind in other planets too doing the same thing and trying to find a nice place to relocate.

            Mankind and even earth may disappear due to some imbalance in the universe. All finite things have to face extinction.


  20. @Sanjana

    Thats true. Thats why called it an arrogant movie. Atleast in other space movies there is some adventure etc – here Nolan unbashadely tells Saving Human Life thing again and again. “They” keeping wormhole close to saturn is interpreted as Human being was born on earth but never meant to die here – stupid dialogues and forcing this saving the mankind angle when the movie is about something very different – an emotional story, a sci-fi imagination of wormhole/time-travel/blackhole etc.

    Another thing is, Hans Zimmer keeps pumping up volume when there is no sound in the space. Gravity(the movie) had only background music – here the rockets and spacecrafts make lot of noise…


  21. ritzritz,

    Let me quote another line from another epic sci-fi movie.

    “I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.”

    –The Matrix.

    I think more than Nolan’s obsession with saving the mankind by going to a different planet- you are obsessed with making earth better. This was not supposed to be some documentary about Global warming , CFCs and trash reduction. The writers just picked the whole saving the mankind as a simple premise to exhibit interstellar travel. See the movie for what it is rather than what you think it should be.


  22. Also, I think Nolan is very fond of The Matrix. Just like the previous example…Even his “Inception” was very easily based on another quote from the Matrix

    “Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”

    — Morpheus.


    • ““Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”

      — Morpheus.”

      They all, (chahey star wars ho ya matrix ho), stole from Vedanta 🙂


    • Paapa,
      this just proves my point. Nolan does NOT want to break away from the usual “saving the humanity” thing . He was not bold enuf here.


  23. @Raghav, lets meet on another planet !!


    • And fight, till one of us dies. Its a good thing to do. i Dont want any person opposing my POV. I will kill him. Even if I am alone and lonely in the space without a companion.

      You know why I behave like this?

      I am an American in first place.

      Second I am a character out of Nolan’s ass.



  24. ritzritz,

    I don’t know if you have followed Nolan’s filmography or not, because if you did- you wouldn’t have expected anything radically different from Nolan as far as the basic story/plot is concerned.

    Pick any film of his post Memento and you will see that it has been an inspired/reworked plot of an existing story.

    Insomnia (based on Norwegian film)

    Batman begins, TDk, TDKR – based on existing Batman material

    Inception- inspired by Matrix,Paprika

    The Prestige (based on novel)

    Interstellar – Essentially based on Contact (as far as the Science is concerned)

    Nolan’s movies essentially have these 3 things

    1) A existing idea/story/plot

    2) A complicated yet entertaining and absolutely brilliant screenplay

    3) An unparalleled mainstream treatment with often amazing lines.

    So, I don’t know why you even expected anything radically different from the plot of interstellar.


    • Hmm, well I dont have any issues with inspiration. Maybe I expected more from Nolan and you maybe right.

      Its just that all the praising on the loopholes and laziness and arrogance on Interstellar by blind fans made me comment.


      • “Arrogant” is already a poorly chosen adjective for this film, “laziness” is a downright thoughtless one.


        • “arrogant” is apt term for the kind saving the humanity angle is shown.
          Laziness is also right one cause the director is lazy keeping the whole scheme things vague – one does not know what period movie is set – to start with.


      • ritzritz,

        you have to decide first, what you have a problem with. Initially you said you don’t have the problem with science, then you said you have a problem with “saving the humanity” angle and now you are blaming the loopholes. Now unless these loopholes have nothing to do with the science of interstellar, I am not really sure what you are referring to.


        • “Initially you said you don’t have the problem with science, then you said you have a problem with “saving the humanity” angle”

          Yes, I dont have problem with science in the way of timetravel/space travel/quantum mechanics/relativity etc. I objected to saving the humanity from my right first comment.

          “and now you are blaming the loopholes. Now unless these loopholes have nothing to do with the science of interstellar, I am not really sure what you are referring to.”

          I already said – these are nitpicking. I am not sure what you are not sure on. I am plain and simple in my wordings and not blabbering in heavy pretentious words here.


          • “I objected to saving the humanity from my right first comment”
            If you don’t have saving humanity, then you don’t have the movie; the science doesn’t matter. We all just die on earth and it doesn’t matter if there is NASA, astrophysicists and space missions. So basically you cannot have one without the other. And to be fair to Nolan, it is not just about saving the people on earth. It also has plan b of saving the species, if plan A doesn’t work. If one ignores the ‘poetic licenses’ taken by the script writer than watching the movie for its science or just for its emotions is lot of fun. I don’t understand why you are so worked up about it, ritzritz! After all it is not HNY or it wasn’t as if someone forced you to spend your money and watch the movie!!


  25. Apex:


    This is Nolans best film yet but that’s part of the story. While watching this, I instantly remembered how Mark Zuckenberg (Mr Facebook) always wears the same t-shirt & pair of jeans (& I think Steve Jobs made a similar anti-fashion ‘statement’!). The modern mind & media love ‘brands’, which have instant recall value. The true classic case of the ‘brand’ happens spontaneously (or ‘organically). For eg On a somewhat tangential note, one can think of ‘apex’ being a v small ‘brand’ in film blogging circles with a certain distinctive (& often different) stance-though the scale and magnitude is obviously much smaller (can’t stop laughing at that cheeky & opportunistic comparison though)

    Many times the ‘brand’ is actively pursued, rather ‘groomed’ in the mind of the unsuspecting consumer. ‘Nolanism’ isn’t there yet but there have been attempts at taking it there. It’s not entirely undeserved though. The London boy apparently started filming with a hand-held camera before the age of ten as per folklore. There have been ‘releases’ in the media of the mythical ways in which Nolan went about location hunting for this movie.

    The release timing, I think, sacrifices the summer blockbuster slot whilst keeping tabs on the oscar season. Nolan gives it his everything (literally!) and creates his best and most ambitious film yet. Unfortunately ambition and intention doesn’t hide or justify all the flaws. It’s a very worthwhile film and the originality and earnestness of intention is creditable.

    Trying to inflate genres & ‘packing in too much’, exaggerated abstraction, deliberate ambiguity are familiar Nolanisms. Human survival, lost love, father-daughter bonding, sci fi, relativity, quantum physics, and god knows that. “Everything has a deeper design to it” may appear spurious criticism but sometimes it’s too much of a good thing. Just looking it the other way, let’s see what all he omits–even by chance there’s not much scope of comedy or god-forbid sex (I mean it sounds blasphemous even mentioning it in this Nolan work).

    Hans Zimmer is subpar here I must sadly say. All the starcast is high calibre but somehow seems under-utilised –(esp Anne Hathaway–no pun intended). Even the highly effective Jessica Chastain doesn’t really nail it. Mat Damon was infact truly horrible here (& the casting was very ordinary). Eventually it’s left for Matthew McConnaughey continuing his superlative career renaissance (liked him here).

    The time-bending and confluence of science and spiritualism was creditable indeed and something I enjoyed quite a bit- I deliberately used the word ‘enjoyed’ here. I don’t want it to appear that I’m ripping this film apart –there was a lot to admire (& rant about). Perhaps my mind is also stuck in a bit of a time warp right now and may recover more memory later. Liked the scene where Macconnaughy speeds away for the last time leaving his family, the scene cutting to the launching into space.

    ‘Faux’ science and conveninent extrapolation of some known scientific theories is almost a plot device here. Won’t go onto too much detail but as an example let’s tackle the ‘wormhole’ concept –(mind you, we are not talking ‘glory hole’ here!). Now decades ago, poor Einstein postulated a ‘wormhole’ of some denomination but even he won’t have known in his wildest dreams how this theory will be manoeuvred & molested for various ends here. If one uses a ‘wormhole’ in the way described for space travel -well, it’s perhaps easier and safer to believe in ghosts and spirits and above all God. Throwing in phony science-like rational arguments does give a measure of respect and seriousness to proceedings- and I don’t exactly find Nolan to be guilty of this all the time here. Will pause here–I think I’m being a bit too severe on Nolan here & gettin carried away with excessive criticism here –(Am I really?). There’s still a lot to admire here …after all


    • Nice review Alex. Have you considered the possibility that this movie may have just occurred in Cooper’s brain, a dream sequence of sorts where he (and his daughter) saves humanity? If you take that angle then movie becomes quite interesting because ‘anything’ can happen in a dream. My theory is that it is quite likely that Cooper’s craft exploded after take off or he might have died upon entering the black-hole. Your entire life and rest of the movie can flash before your eyes as you are dying in split seconds!! Anyhow, it is one of the most interesting movies of 2014 coming from Hollywood.


  26. Thanks to Baba from for coming up with a very logical point.

    The science in interstellar for time dilation is laughable.

    “A lack of gravity is the main cause for these intense alterations. Gravity is one of the most important forces at work on Earth, and it plays an immense role in the majority of our bodily systems. Take the muscles, for example. Older peoples’ muscles tend to shrink and atrophy as they age and become less mobile. Astronauts’ muscles react in a similar way because they are barely used. That’s why astronauts in space for extended periods of time use special exercise machines to help mitigate this effect.”


    • Time dilation is indeed fake and laughable concept in “biological terms”. Now all my other nitpickings are on one side this whole stupidity of time dilation in biological level leaves Interstellar as a completely laughing stock!

      Read on:


      • Man can always produce sophisticated robots who can think and act like us with more sturdy body framework. Biological infirmity wont affect them. They can be sent to explore the universe and send answers to us. Man is too frail to withstand the rigours of space exploration beyond a point. As for man inhabiting other spaces in place of earth, it will remain a Nolan dream. We have to live here and die here only. Jeena yahan, marna yahan, iske sivay jaana kahan.


        • @sanjana

          Agree with you completely.

          This was a half-baked film about time-dilation at biological level.


          • “This was a half-baked film about time-dilation at biological level.”
            You are the only one on the blog who cannot stop talking (raving) about this movie! Seems to have impacted you greatly.
            I thought it was paisa wasul. Had good fun watching and discussing it later. I may watch it again on IMAX


        • Again one more logical point by Baba

          “in the movie mat damon says human are sent to space bcos they have survivial instinct that mahcines doesnt”


          • So based on this point, Sanjana’s above point does not hold ground.


          • Man has survival instincts. If futuristic robots are developed the way man thinks, it will also exhibit survival instincts combined with the advantage of a strong body with brutal strength.

            Apart, man is capable of creating wonders. Who dreamt some hundreds of years ago man can fly carrying his heavy luggage with hundreds of others for company in an aluminium contraption? Who dreamt that one can talk and see people across the seas within seconds? Who dreamt that man can unravel so many mysteries and find solutions too? Who dreamt that man can annihlitate parts of the world with remote control? Man surpsses and science helps him to do so.

            Nolan has magnificent dreams and his dreams may come true in some other strange way. The magic is there and man, the magician is there.


          • Our mythologicals have pushpak vimans, mirrors that can see things far away or divyadrishti which are fantastic imaginations(Nolan like but without scientific backing).
            Dreams are still not explained fully. Hallucinations may not be hallucinations in some cases. And that uncanny sixth sense is there.


  27. I saw Interstellar. Impressed with the ambition of the story and the way it unfolds. For a very lengthy film the story and holds strong and the film gathers momentum, at the stage of Damon’s entry.
    I was a tad disappointed compared to Gravity, which I felt better captured the visual spectacle of space. But there were a few spectacular scenes and visuals – the one of the wave really stands out. Everything in the alter planets, the colours and landscape were visionary.
    Matthew Mcconaughey was good, but sometimes I could not even understand what he was saying! It felt like he was mumbling. Anne Hathaway – yummy as usual.

    Nolan is magnificent – such ambition should be applauded. The Dark Knight films are so organic in the way things unfold, his storytelling and pacing is spot on. There is very little irrelevance in his films, he uses most scenes efficiently.
    I did not see this as a “saving the planet” kind of story solely. The premise is obviously there, but I found this to be more a story between father and daughter and the emotional attachment between the two, that was more the core of the film for me. Some of the scenes Matthew goes through when looking at his videos are the more considered moments in the film and give the film a touch of grief in the background. The poignancy of going away to accomplish something important and leaving everything behind because you have too underpins the film. The agony in this story is though that you don’t lose minutes, or months apart, you lose a whole lifetime.
    But the most impressive thing is the idea/ambition/vision of Nolan. You’ve got to be incredibly smart and creative to think and conjure up this kind of story. I did not care for the scientific jargon, it was over my head but at least it was there. There was a deliberate intent to showcase the science, films of the past skate over it and dim it down to the audiences level but that sometimes makes it less meaningful. Science is a wonderful thing, you don’t need to understand it in the film to know the outcome.
    When I watched Avatar I thought the story was fairly basic too. But it’s an incredible skill to make the most basic of plots highly engaging and create a totally different world and setting for it.


  28. “Early in Christopher Nolan’s space opera, we see a number of older people on screen, recalling what it was like to live through a natural disaster. “My dad was a farmer back then, like everybody else. Of course, he didn’t start out that way,” reminisces a woman. “When we set the table, we always set the bowls upside down,” recalls a man.
    One of the older women, Murphy Cooper, is played by the actress Ellen Burstyn. But the rest are not actors. They are interview subjects fromFrom Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan’s 2012 documentary “The Dust Bowl,” and they are speaking about their experiences in that real environmental catastrophe, rather than a fictional cataclysm.”


  29. Sanjana:


    1) The debris which is discarded by the damaged rotating station could not have lingered around the area. Any debris should have departed from the craft in a straight line away from the center of rotation.

    2) ​The older Murphy has a distinct chin cleft but the younger Murphy does not have it.

    3) ​Before Cooper gives Murphy the watch, the time shows 9:02. However, when they compare it later, the time reads 8:22.

    4) Murphy pushes the gear shifter forwards instead of pulling back where 2nd gear is found in that particular vehicle.

    5) After docking to the damaged Endurance, the ship’s engines are fired for the escape maneuver. The ship’s engine axis is well away from the center of mass, yet the station doesn’t spin.

    6) Brand is so close to the event horizon while doing the gravitational slingshot that her subsequent escape would have had her travelling such a high percentage of the speed of light that landing on another planet would have been rather hard since she’d first have to shed all of that velocity.

    7) The damaged craft spinning around its central axis would cause the docking hatch to rotate and to move in circles, eventually making the docking, as seen in the movie, impossible.

    8) Coops’ spiral pocket notebook keeps changing in every scene. While the spirals come loose in a few scenes, the notebook is in quite a good shape in others.

    9) Cooper draws a schematic on the drawing board to depict a landing on a planet close to the black hole. Two scenes later, the drawing is different from the one first shown.

    10) In the docking sequence after leaving Dr.Mann’s planet, Case said that rotation ratio of Endurance is 67-68 rpm but judging by the actual screen it is way slower than this and around 10-15 rpm.

    Read on. There is much more.



    Fifty years from now, Interstellar will be remembered as one of the best and most important movies ever made, IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.