Outstanding, an example for other writers to learn from

Rating: 10/10 (25 August 2015)

I cannot help but compare this to 2001, A Space Odyssey: That Christopher Nolan has produced something that can compare to the work of Clarke & Kubrick is the highest praise I can think of for anything in this genre since.
While 2001 has in many respects a more complex plot, Interstellar achieves a very similar depth while not seeming derivative. Few movies have approached the detail in 2001 when it comes to things like portrayal of gravity in space - this is one. As in 2001, the visual effects are excellent but serve to deliver the film rather than carry it.
Interstellar packs a nicely mind-bending plot, plenty of appeal in a general sci-fi sense, and good attention to detail in those aspects of sci-fi that can in fact be realistic: thrusters not making noise in vacuum, for instance.
It isn't "hard sci-fi" to the level that 2001 was, but it doesn't at all suffer from that distinction -- the aspects that may be completely unrealistic are portrayed such that they don't interfere with enjoying the film.
Many details that would need reconciliation with realism are conveyed in a manner that seems well done and not cheap as in some films (Event Horizon, while by no means in the same class, is an example of what I mean). There are things that aren't explained (and would be tough to explain convincingly) and Nolan expertly diverts the viewer to the rest of the story rather than giving a contrived explanation of why things work the way they do.
The acting is superb, the characters are believable (not to mention much more human than those in 2001), and overall I would say this is the best science fiction movie I've seen in at least a decade.
Is it a better film than 2001? No. However, I'm not certain that 2001 is a better film than Interstellar. They are similar in some respects, but different in enough that they both stand as excellent in their own right.