I actually liked Nolan's previous films, though the last Batman movie got pretty silly at times. I should have realized that "Inception" was going to be a clue what this movie was about. In that film, you had to accept a lot of things that simply made no sense (such as how people actually physically get into each other's dreams) and could enjoy it anyway.
With "Interstellar," you had to stretch that level of acceptance to downright comical lengths. I'm at a loss as to how I could go over all the plot holes and not take a lot of my time doing so, but there were so many I gave up trying to keep track of them all. Anything that isn't explained is simply put off as "it must be us, way in the future." The science was so flawed that again, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Put simply, any movie that people rave mostly about, "how cool it looks" should be a red flag to most people that it lacks substance. That certainly applies in this case, in spades. It is a cool looking movie, no question. But it's also a real mess of a movie, too.
And at the risk of putitng out spoilers, they don't even resolve the basic premise of the movie at all.
Some will compare it to "2001," which is sort of valid in the concept of a very good-looking space film that didn't make a lot of sense to folks, but 2001 made perfect sense up to the very end. "Interstellar," for lack of any better way to put it, was an unholy mess. I'm convinced that the reviewers who have raved about it did so only because they couldn't admit to themsevles that they didn't get it and assumed it was high art.
"Plot? Where we're going, we don't need plots..."
