Story line poorly conceived and based on false hope

Rating: 1/10 (13 April 2015)

This sci-fi flick takes place in the future by 35 years or so, but spends almost no time developing the factors that have lead to an atmospheric crisis (hypoxia) which posits the end of humanity. The movie uses dust storms to convey a sense of doom, even though there is no connection with the nitrogen/oxygen ratio. I have a hard time with scifi where at times they seem to be guided strongly by technical advisors (hacking into the UAV, the rotating 1-g mothership), and then veer into fictional excess (wormholes, star-wars maneuvering in outer space, escaping a black hole's g-field, time reversal). Good scifi can take a single imaginary premise and run the narrative with it (Rod Serling-style), but this story looks like it was flirting with the impossible at too many junctures, and then using the first thing that came to mind to blow past it. The story line became incomprehensible towards the end, after Coop separates from the mothership and goes into the black hole.
My biggest criticism of the film is the story framework -- building up the escapist fantasy of befouling the Earth and then colonizing another planet. Given that 99% of people do not want to give up comforts or economic growth to assure the habitability of their only host-planet (the one they evolved to be compatible with over a 1-2 billion year process), audiences are given aid and comfort in their destructive escapism by artworks such as Interstellar. It is a cruel, irresponsible exercise in denial to suggest for a moment that the Earth can be "replaced". This movie panders to the ultimate false hope - - depicting a survival scenario where Earth as life-support system is devalued, destroyed and discarded.
I thought great art was about confronting reality, not helping people deny it.