This is what happens when you don't use art to inspire and question the audience, or do you? (Probably some spoilers)

Rating: 5/10 (8 July 2014)

But actually this movie just shows some images that might put you on thought about the deep message of the movie. And come to think about that this movie is so praised for being mind-blowing and visually stunning(agree only with the last one). So to quote a reviewer who once said this line: "Great movies are often those who question the audience". So what's wrong with this movie? The simple fact that it gives the audiences the answer as if the answer would be that or the other one, not one which we would realize we could not comprehend or realize it exceeds our grasp of understanding the things in our 3 dimensional space. But the question and the complexity of the movie is either missing or hidden so well in order for the ending to shock the viewer. For me personally - because this is a subjective review - I would prefer for the movie to take me somewhere where I would understand that I can't understand... like have a message beyond words or images. Instead this movie spends it's time with nonsensical stuff and doesn't asks me or takes me to that place I might not fully grasp or comprehend but rather shows images of things whose meaning I couldn't understand in the context of the movie.
Next point I'll touch with this review is that all the persons and their supposed knowledge or expertise seemed so fake and cheaply executed. This is mainly because the movie tries to force one idea on my throat by repeating it over and over with different characters and set pieces that just ruins the humanity of the characters or their professional authenticity. So, to give you an example take the hibernating process which in my opinion seemed fake just like the artificial gravity... it was like a theater play. Not even a word about how it was done that might show me as a spectator that the guys were astronauts who knew what they were doing and what physical concepts or theories were using. Instead there were more ambiguous and vague images that might capture my attention or curiosity. And then when movies like "Interstellar" come with actors guided by astronauts on how to float in 0 G, or theories of physics that prove that the characters do know those stuff, majority of the so-called "critics" or "movie- goers" trash it for exceeding it's grasp. Wake up people! That's what we humans feel when we understand that some stuff are impossible to comprehend and that's exactly what that movie is trying to say to it's audiences. What people want instead is to have answers on a plate brought before them. That's plain superficial and not deep or intriguing yet alone mind-blowing as this movie is called.
Another problem in this film is that the human kind appears to be too advanced in 2001. We actually didn't advanced much since 1920's till 1960's, so what possible miracle could make us advance so much in 40 years? Even now with all of this technology we don't advance, but sometimes remain the same in some ways. That's one of the big problems with old sci-fi movies... they show a "not so distant future" that is so advanced beyond imagination and one that lacks realism... but the majority of film experts buy this cheap things that movies like this are trying to sell.
In conclusion I'll give this movie only a 5... and that's for the visual spectacle that this movie unfortunately only is. I say "only" because the intellectual and mind-blowing part is too well hidden and dragged that doesn't make me ask myself questions nor makes me realize that what happens in this movie will never happen due to our(or my) human limitations both physical and intellectual.