'Interstellar' may never equal the blast of scientific speculation and cinematic revelation that was Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey,' but its un-Earthly vistas are spectral and spectacular.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
'Interstellar' is a thematic sequel to Christopher Nolan's last original film, 'Inception'. It drops us into a dark future full of otherworldly landscapes and time distortions.
When you're doing a film called 'Interstellar,' at some point - the idea was to be grounded in the science as much as possible - but with a name like 'Interstellar,' you had better go somewhere big and bold.
A lot of cinematic influences on 'Descender' - Kubrick for sure. '2001: A Space Odyssey' is my favorite movie. It has been since I was 12. I just love that film.
Put simply, 'Interstellar' has a strong undercurrent of cheesiness.
I do hope that 'Interstellar' and this kind of science in film will catch the public fancy and help to reignite an interest in science - and a respect for the power of science in dealing with the problems that society has to deal with.
Stanley Kubrick's '2001' was the door that opened up the possibility of science fiction for me. Everything else up to then was fine, but didn't quite work for me.
If you love epic space opera, you shouldn't miss 'Interstellar'.
Watching 'Interstellar' is really like watching two movies slowly collide with each other.
I remember going to London with my father in 1968 to see '2001: A Space Odyssey.' I just soaked in that movie. To me, that was real; it was going to happen.
I was always like, 'No, I don't like sci-fi,' and then I started watching it and thought, I didn't know that's what it was. I think I'd somehow got it confused with action and space-travel action - that sci-fi could only be like 'Star Wars.'
No opposing quotes found.