No mere law of physics shall stand in the way of a good tearjerker

Rating: 6/10 (8 November 2014)

What to say about Christopher Nolan's space travel blockbuster? Well it covers very familiar ground, and in some ways is a pastiche of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (with more than a touch of Yukinobu Hoshino's '2001 Nights'). But it's 2001 with Cliff Notes and endless explanatory voice-overs. Which don't help one bit. And despite some great visuals and set pieces, its as much mawky melodrama as serious science fiction.
The script is terrible: flat, bloated, uber-hokey and at times laugh-out-loud. The four (four!) repetitions of Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle" don't help. Characters are thinly-developed and white, middle class stereotypical. There are more teary goodbyes than a full season of Teletubbies. There is almost nothing in the way of character agency or development. Matthew McConaughey is forgettable, despite playing the all-American everything who saves the universe (or does he?). Anne Hathaway impresses, doing a decent job with terrible material. Michael Caine features as himself.
Matt Damon appears in an interlude that is both jarring and confused, a (necessary?) concession for the action crowd that adds to nothing bar the running time.
The worst thing about Interstellar is the science. Now as a Kubrick tragic, I thought I'd long ago covered all the superlatives for 2001, but after watching Interstellar I came up with a new one: Integrity. Kubrick and Clarke totally respected the science. Interstellar's plot is based upon 'the science', yet abuses it absolutely. I mean, it's *Star Trek* bad. No mere law of physics is going to stand in the way of a good tearjerker. Black holes, degree of relativity, radiation, gravitational tides? Who cares! For a movie that pretends to set the bar high, it's a fatal flaw.
It's a Nolan film, so the gadgets are great. The dust bowl blight background is well thought through. The cinematography is stylish and the restrained CGI extremely effective. Other characteristic Nolan foibles impress less - dialogue has never been his strong point, the on-screen philosophising is banal, and the music - organs swells and vibrant cello stringing - often drown out the scene rather than supporting it.
I'm still thinking about Interstellar (a good sign in itself). I'm now offering it grudging respect, Respect for its coherence in the face of the multiple conflicting demands it faces as a blockbuster. Respect for the bits it does well: the human loss involved in space travel, the tensions of family versus greater good, even its cheek in criticising the dumbing down of American culture while contributing to it. What really stands out is how it is all bathed in a retro futurism: a longing for a lost America of pioneers and visionaries, that mythical age when science mattered as the film describes a farmer-hero, tech-hating proto-fascism.
The weaknesses of the script are its undoing, however, and its sad to think that the relativistic tragedies and three planet problem could have been portrayed without ludicrous deus-ex-singularis anti-science.
So. There were some great bits. There were some terrible bits. Its messy, poorly plotted, and three hours long. On balance though, I'd recommend you see it. Once. What saves it from a fate worse than Prometheus is the overall coherence. There is lots of discussion to be had over plot holes, ontological paradoxes, and (of course) how we'd do it better. Just know what you're getting yourself into.