Skin-deep masterpiece

Rating: 7/10 (1 January 2015)

Hats off to this film for bringing a beautiful blend of different elements to life. The gritty open spaces of the midwest (a nod to the origins of many of the real world NASA astronauts of the 60's and 70's), the awe-inspiring vistas, thunder, and silences involved in escaping our planet on the tips of rockets, the incredible daring and adventure involved in going further. The soundtrack blending perfectly with the imagery at every turn, heightening the experience.
But all of this focus on atmospherics came at the price of second rate plot and science elements. _2001_ remains the only major example where first rate science fiction talent worked with first rate film talent, and the result relegates films like _Interstellar_ and _Prometheus_ to a second tier. These "B+" films are masterful works on the surface, but do not stand scratching or digging below.
Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick went back and forth for months working on the script for _2001_. Clarke created it for the screen -- it was not based on trying to adapt a novel. He rewrote the majority of it several times as the demands of film were brought together with the realities of the projected trajectory of science. In _Interstellar_, by contrast, premise after unreasonable premise must be ignored by the viewer in order to enjoy the story.
Just a few examples. How are things going to be any easier growing crops on another planet if we can't get it fixed on earth? Why are all of these probes able to send only vague data about "presence of organics" without even any timestamps while the next ship with only 10 years later technology can send video communications? How did they determine all of these planets to go to in the first place? Why send only one person to each to be driven crazy by loneliness? Why on earth would landing on the time-zoomed planet even be considered? Why do they need a massive rocket to get off earth but fly off in a Star Wars-like winged lander from a planet with 1.3x earth's gravity? How are giant waves propagating in 8 inches of water? It just goes on and on.
It's depressing that with all the millions spent on making this movie they couldn't spare the time and the resources to put thought into the story. It seems like they just gave up and figured they couldn't make the entertaining, beautiful vision they wanted while keeping the science and the story believable at the same time. But _2001_ proved that wrong 46 years ago (!), and they should have aimed higher.
All of that said, if you're into SF it's a better film than 90% of the stuff coming out, and benefits greatly from the big screen experience, so go see it!