3 for the visuals, 0 for the story.

Rating: 3/10 (12 May 2016)

I'm usually happy to sit for half an hour and write a lengthy review. Today I can't be bothered.
All I can say is, having hundreds of millions in budget does NOT make for a great director, as Nolan proves here. Being fortunate enough to work with an amazing FX team and having the budget that Nolan does for his films should make amazing visuals a given, and we certainly get them with Interstellar, but that's where anything remotely impressive begins and ends.
Like I say, I would usually analyse every single aspect of the film in a review, today I can't be bothered. Simply because, the majority of the 10/10 reviews are DEFINITELY paid for. DEFINITELY.
The acting is shoddy, McConaughey in particular is very flat and unlikable. Hathaway is not much better. Even Caine is not at his best.
For such a big budget sci-if movie, the visuals (as impressive as they are) are accompanied by slow, lumbered, uneventful and quite frankly boring story. Lack of realism is never a problem for me in films, but lack of excitement definitely is. They could have done so much more, they didn't.
I cannot stress enough how much the 10/10 reviews are definitely paid for, and I encourage you to watch a 3 minute clip on YouTube of the best CGI moments of this film. That's all that's worth watching.
It's otherwise a real, real letdown. Nolan once again proving that he's extremely hit and miss, and extremely overrated. Anyone can make a good visual with enough money, but you can't buy talented writing/directing.
3/10.