Beat the pants off 2001, and that is all that matter to me.
I'm not as critical of the theoretical science behind the film as I am with basic character development. Any good film needs realistic/interesting believable characters. Interstellar did not have this. A few examples:
Murph being angry her dad left her as a child - Yeah, makes sense.
But then . . .
Murph at age 28, working under the man that sent her dad off planet. She now understands why her dad had to do what was necessary to save all of humanity on earth and has dedicated her life as well towards the same cause, yet she is still angry at her dad and refuses to communicate with him until the age of 28? And then she only sends him one message. It's just not logical character development.
Then, to top it off, as Murph is a happy old lady on her death bed, she claims she always knew he would come back, like she was never angry with him, and then after 5 minutes she sends him on his way. No word of his son. No hugs or any emotion at all from the extended family. Wha? Just a real strangely constructed scene far more unrealistic than any 5th dimensional black hole.
I love that cover!
hm what, what do you mean? =D HahaHa. I wonder why?...
Not bad for an original non-sequel, non-existing franchise, no capes, and some hard science flick......
‘Interstellar’ Rockets to $450 Million at Worldwide Box Office
http://www.thewrap.com/interstellar-rockets-to-450-million-at-worldwide-box-office/
Hey swgeek, can you tell us who the mind behind TARS was? I've been thinking about it the past couple days and the design is just so clever.