Enjoyable enough, but grossly over-hyped

Rating: Null/10 (19 March 2015)

I'd heard a great deal of praise for this movie being so wonderful and scientifically accurate. I finally got to see it and, while it was enjoyable enough, it didn't blow me away like it apparently did for many of the viewing public. I will say that I was okay with the first act of the movie, however I would have liked to have known just what the heck happened to the planet and even what century the story takes place in. There is talk about what happened in the 21st century, but what century does the movie take place in? On the heels of that, if we are so far into the future that cryo-sleep exists, why are there not electric vehicles instead of continuing to use gas-guzzlers? That kind of struck me as being rather inconsistent. Again, this and many other questions go back to the issue of not having an adequate enough back story on what has happened with the planet, to say nothing about why society is now determined to follow that ridiculous conspiracy theory that man never landed on the moon/flew any space missions ever. Honestly Nolan, your movie is supposedly VERY scientifically factual, yet you're pulling the moon landing was fake conspiracy crap?
The next part that really bothered me was the introduction of the "villain" in the second act. Honestly, from almost the very beginning of his introduction, the idea that Matt Damon's character was the bad guy was pretty badly telegraphed, at least to me. The moment they showed the destroyed robot of his and his lame explanation about it, the only thing missing from Damon's performance to show he was a psychotic bad guy was an evil laugh. Additionally, while I understand that Damon's character had to die, why wouldn't Mat and Anne's characters just flat out say over the radio and intercom, "You're not properly docked, if you open the hatch you'll blow out and die!" instead of just constantly saying, "Do not dock! Do not dock!"
When it came to the third act, now I started having problems with the story. First and foremost, anyone who knows even a little bit about Black Holes knows that the instant you cross the event horizon of one you are dead...horribly, unspeakably painfully, dead. Basically every single part of your body is stretched out in every conceivable direction all at the exact same time. We are given no explanation for Matthew's character's survival other than because of some mythical 5th dimensional-accessing people that is apparently evolved humanity from the future. So, we are to believe that this mythical evolution of humanity is able to somehow override the absolutely mind-boggling gravitational forces of a BLACK HOLE??? Not only that, but these beings are apparently also capable of sending Matthew back through time so he can be the one to put in motion the events of the past? This just screams paradox to me. After all, if it was Matthew's character who facilitated the mission and his being on it in the first place from the future, how did he ever get involved with the mission in the first place in the past? I'll let you debate about the scientific and theoretic possibilities on this one.
The final set of scenes was okay, but really it seemed like Matthew had stopped putting out any emotion for his character from the moment he woke up on the space station. He sees his daughter, now as an old woman, and has completely missed out on her entire life. And yet, we see no kind of remorse, sadness, happiness, nothing. He just seemed to be playing a typical Matthew McConaughey cool cat character. Hell, he barely seemed to register any kind of emotion when he was about to embark upon what was very likely a one-way mission to go find Anne Hatthaway's character This was the part of the movie that truly bothered me. He made such a HUGE deal about getting back to his daughter that when he finally does get back to her he doesn't even react.
On the plus side, I really liked the robots and thought they were pretty cool and a rather unique design.