Interstellar by Christopher Nollan
Reviewed by Svetoslav Grigorov
First, I had to look at the score on www.IMDb.com to confirm that all the rumors were true (9 out of 10): me and Paul were the only ones who didn't like this movie and left 45 minutes before it had finished. Whatever that means I can assure you that I was/am still sober and I am not a zombie like the rest of the crowd in the Kettering Odeon cinema. Secondly, I would like to ask how all these critics made the comparison(s) with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and thirdly, please you who now read this review tell me that I am not the only one in my dullest disappointment for the year. Tell me that I haven't lost my marbles, tell me that you were enthralled from this copy of a House On The Prairie and if you think that this is the best movie of your life (or at least 2014), the only answer I can think of is: that's why so many rubbish movies have been released lately. Because the level of the quality has fallen drastically and the conveyor belt of the movie industry is catastrophic for the senses.
OK, so straight to the point. First 45 minutes we are introduced to the farming, dust and the coming famine problems, nitrogen on the rise in the atmosphere, Earth is doomed, father and daughter found a super-secret location that NASA strategically placed for their eyes only. We see a lot of corn and even the nineties Children of The Corn was a better shallow slasher while this one turns out to be an American clichéd space marmalade, and my best fitting comparison for it is Armageddon which is not really a movie, but a joke. Wormholes, saving of the human kind, bringing resources, planting/replanting, Plan A /Plan B, frozen embryos to colonize a distant world, overcoming gravity, scientists and even a quantum physics and so much camera- philosophy that Kubrick will turn in his grave, daddy-please-don't-go-to-space-cause –I'm- gonna-cry, bam the watch on the floor (I don't wanna see you anymore), counting while going into the stratosphere, Lego-robot which somehow was better acting than the rest of the actors or at least was more fun. Wait, wait, did I say actors? Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine (The rest of them are not worth mentioning apart from the crying daughter Murph who did her best job).
Matthew McConaughey has one of the most annoying twangs ever and his jaundiced bad- version-face of Paul Newman cannot contribute to any script lately (let's not forget that without the help of Jared Leto and his masterful transformation in The Dallas Buyers Club his Oscar was going to hell). His mumbling could be understood only from the villagers in Kentucky and what he is on about Seriously, I needed subtitles to comprehend his actor's efforts in such a "serious" movie. How serious this movie was! I pushed myself to read couple of the 'serious' critical reviews and they had the audacity to call it "scientific"??? Oh man, poor Anne Hathaway who looked sometimes at the camera and was likely apologizing for the mess she was in. I felt sorry for her.
The script was the hell of the hells. Such nonsense with no credibility and no creativity at all. Total zero or even below the zero. As I said we left long before the end because my time is precious. I will open Isaac Asimov's (or Stanislaw Lem's) short stories and will be engulfed in characters and situations, so my brain will be given food for thought while all these poor people are going to see Interbol..cks and will be exposed on the radiation of a mediocrity (yes, I felt cheated like someone was trying to insult me). Well, if you who now read this review respect yourself and really like Kubrick, Moon, Gravity (and even Contact) and other good sci-fi don't waste your time and save your money. Today we wasted £40 including the drinks, the popcorn and the tickets and the only thing that I was inspired for was my generated anger for this text. My verdict on the scale from 1 to 10 is to give ONE for the director Christopher Nolan who needs a little encouragement and I am hoping he will not slip into the shoes of M. Night Shyamalan who have crafted a lot of rubbish lately as you know. God forbid that never happens.
P.S.Don't tell me that I have sat there for 2 (it's actually 169 minutes) hours of a film and it had a great ending cause I don't want know.
Reviewed by Svetoslav Grigorov
First, I had to look at the score on www.IMDb.com to confirm that all the rumors were true (9 out of 10): me and Paul were the only ones who didn't like this movie and left 45 minutes before it had finished. Whatever that means I can assure you that I was/am still sober and I am not a zombie like the rest of the crowd in the Kettering Odeon cinema. Secondly, I would like to ask how all these critics made the comparison(s) with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and thirdly, please you who now read this review tell me that I am not the only one in my dullest disappointment for the year. Tell me that I haven't lost my marbles, tell me that you were enthralled from this copy of a House On The Prairie and if you think that this is the best movie of your life (or at least 2014), the only answer I can think of is: that's why so many rubbish movies have been released lately. Because the level of the quality has fallen drastically and the conveyor belt of the movie industry is catastrophic for the senses.
OK, so straight to the point. First 45 minutes we are introduced to the farming, dust and the coming famine problems, nitrogen on the rise in the atmosphere, Earth is doomed, father and daughter found a super-secret location that NASA strategically placed for their eyes only. We see a lot of corn and even the nineties Children of The Corn was a better shallow slasher while this one turns out to be an American clichéd space marmalade, and my best fitting comparison for it is Armageddon which is not really a movie, but a joke. Wormholes, saving of the human kind, bringing resources, planting/replanting, Plan A /Plan B, frozen embryos to colonize a distant world, overcoming gravity, scientists and even a quantum physics and so much camera- philosophy that Kubrick will turn in his grave, daddy-please-don't-go-to-space-cause –I'm- gonna-cry, bam the watch on the floor (I don't wanna see you anymore), counting while going into the stratosphere, Lego-robot which somehow was better acting than the rest of the actors or at least was more fun. Wait, wait, did I say actors? Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine (The rest of them are not worth mentioning apart from the crying daughter Murph who did her best job).
Matthew McConaughey has one of the most annoying twangs ever and his jaundiced bad- version-face of Paul Newman cannot contribute to any script lately (let's not forget that without the help of Jared Leto and his masterful transformation in The Dallas Buyers Club his Oscar was going to hell). His mumbling could be understood only from the villagers in Kentucky and what he is on about Seriously, I needed subtitles to comprehend his actor's efforts in such a "serious" movie. How serious this movie was! I pushed myself to read couple of the 'serious' critical reviews and they had the audacity to call it "scientific"??? Oh man, poor Anne Hathaway who looked sometimes at the camera and was likely apologizing for the mess she was in. I felt sorry for her.
The script was the hell of the hells. Such nonsense with no credibility and no creativity at all. Total zero or even below the zero. As I said we left long before the end because my time is precious. I will open Isaac Asimov's (or Stanislaw Lem's) short stories and will be engulfed in characters and situations, so my brain will be given food for thought while all these poor people are going to see Interbol..cks and will be exposed on the radiation of a mediocrity (yes, I felt cheated like someone was trying to insult me). Well, if you who now read this review respect yourself and really like Kubrick, Moon, Gravity (and even Contact) and other good sci-fi don't waste your time and save your money. Today we wasted £40 including the drinks, the popcorn and the tickets and the only thing that I was inspired for was my generated anger for this text. My verdict on the scale from 1 to 10 is to give ONE for the director Christopher Nolan who needs a little encouragement and I am hoping he will not slip into the shoes of M. Night Shyamalan who have crafted a lot of rubbish lately as you know. God forbid that never happens.
P.S.Don't tell me that I have sat there for 2 (it's actually 169 minutes) hours of a film and it had a great ending cause I don't want know.