• I actually saw it today for the first time.

    I am not particularly a fan of movies, on average, but this one was quite different in that sense. Even though certain elements were predictable, they still managed quite beautifully. There is nothing which influences my opinion of a story more than atmosphere, and given the philosophical implications, and my personal experience and background with engineering and NASA, the atmosphere fit my preference perfectly. And in addition to that, the theories presented were mentally stimulating; not often that a movie requires prolonged thought to interpret a concept.

    But what ultimately sparked my interest in this masterpiece was its ability to mold the two concepts of human spirituality (e.G. Connection among one another) to something so permanent- the permanency of space itself. Even in the title itself, 'Across the Stars', hence "Interstellar", provides evidence of this sense of permanence in both space and emotional bond, implying both time and distance are irrelevant in their equation. And probably the most notable of all- 'the fate of humanity lies in the hands of humanity'. The addition of "the ghost" tied the entire story together, to a 'single point in space'. It might be a biased opinion, given my background, but it will always be a 10/10 in my book from this point onward.

  • It was amazing.

    I found the film to be the best I ever saw in my life. Other than Child Murph the acting was executed perfectly by everyone in the film. The visuals were quite spectacular and in my opinion WAY better than anything in Gravity or related. The science behind the movie was used as realistically as possible due to Kip Thorne. The story was excellent and for the most part made sense. The scenes all had differences and when needed were very intense. The critics underrated it to only a 70 or 4/5. Do you think this was a good movie or an overrated love flick like Frozen?

  • It was exactly as good as I heard...

    That is to say, not amazing .Because so many people seem to have very high opinions of the movie, I decided to put my response in the "No" side, as it was as good as I heard it was, but it seems that those I asked the opinions of were not in the majority. I don't really know where everybody else is getting their reviews from. I just asked a few friends, and they said it was alright, but nothing too special.
    I had nothing better to do, so I went and watched it. I was impressed by the visual effects, as well as the amount of accuracy in the science behind the movie. Sure, they exaggerated some things, but so what? Doesn't make it a bad movie if you do it just to make some things look cooler. If it was because they legitimately didn't know what they were doing, that would have been another story, but it wasn't, so that point is moot.
    In the end, the movie was good but not, in my personal opinion, an amazing movie.

  • Where Do I Begin?

    It was good, but not the amazing movie I heard it was going to be. I have plenty of complaints about it.

    1. The introduction took most of the movie. Seriously, did we need all that backstory.
    2. Matt Damon's character was just stupid, and only shoe horned in to add a useless, forgettable side conflict.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.