Better than the IMDb ratings suggest

Rating: 9/10 (31 January 2015)

No, this is not a paid review and no, I didn't give it a 10 just to offset the know-nothing 1 star reviewers.
Many have written why this movie merits its rating. This is a majestic, epic story that literally transcends space and time. It is not without some minor flaws however.
That said, this is an SF film barely equaled in the genre. Some might compare this to "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Nolan certainly pays homage to that film. Interestingly, "Interstellar" is better than 2001 in several important ways. It has better acting, score, characters, and is simply more plausible. Plus, you don't have to be on LSD to appreciate the final act. Still, 2001 has that serious, speculative science fiction vibe and was ground-breaking in numerous ways in 1968.
Interstellar, like 2001, is a 3 act play. But where Kubrick's opening was plodding and it's last act was eye candy, Nolan's sticks with a quality storyline throughout. He does a nice job of framing the characters in a purposefully easy-going opening act. He hints at a looming apocalypse without venturing into alarmist global warming scenarios. This was refreshing.
As the story progresses, Cooper and his daughter Murph take a day-long drive to the mountains to pursue a mystery. Regarding this, Nolan is unfairly criticized as having placed NASA's compound conveniently close to Cooper's farm. But is it really? Cooper drives all day and into the night (800+ miles) which could easily take him from central Iowa to Colorado Springs. Reviewers need to grab a map.
The major complaint of the next two acts of the film is that there is too much "technobabble". These are the complaints of people who prefer dumbed-down space operas where there is no plausible way to explain what "science" would be involved to produce what we are seeing on screen. In "Guardians of the Galaxy" for example, is there any effort to explain how the tech works? No. It's completely implausible. And yet GotG rates an eyebrow raising 8.4 despite its ridiculous plot-line, dumb protagonist, and a hackneyed Farscape ripoff sensibility. It's fun but far inferior to better, but lower rated SF films.
In "Interstellar", the science is far from technobabble. Are the theories of physicist, Kip Thorne fictional? The fact that some movie-goers think so is kind of sad.
The film is also unfairly criticized for its presentation of anachronistic tech. People drive GM pickups for years while there apparently is an advanced space station in orbit, complete with AI robots. To this I simply state that a.) even today we have no idea of how advanced secret government tech may be and b.) we still see 1970 Volvos today don't we? In any case, I doubt this was an oversight on Nolan's part. Indeed, I think he is making a point that no new tech is being produced for the masses and that NASA has had to secretly spend $$ for years without Americans knowing about it.
As the story speeds up and events start to spiral out of control, our one living NASA test pilot is thrown into a situation that he and his crew never planned for. By the third act, the film has moved from easy character development to intrigue, action, suspense, and a magnificent Hans Zimmer soundtrack.
And let me say that although I preferred Zimmer's work in Nolan's instant classic, "Inception", this is still an awe-inspiring score and I appreciated it more on the second viewing of the film. It is subtle yet profound. While the use of low brass in the Inception score was genius, the use of pipe organ in Interstellar is likewise a brilliant use of a rarely heard soundtrack instrument.
Finally, I have to outright condemn the critics who have given this film 1 star. Such a rating is simply ludicrous for a host of reasons. I don't care if you think the film didn't hit the mark, or you thought is was too long, or boring, had too much "technobabble", or that Michael Caine was too old. These are petty criticisms and sure, knock off a point for a few of these.
Heck, I walked out of PotC: Dead Man's Chest, But I still gave it 5 stars. Why? Because it was a well edited, nice looking action piece that half-way achieved its goals. It's not like Pirates 2 was "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" (IMDb rating 2.5) or the horrible "Gigli" (IMDb rating 2.3). No, it was better than either of those and better than probably 75% of all movies made. I still disliked it and marvel over those who gave it a 10 out of 10. So I gave it an honest 5.
Yet apparently, many people claim that Nolan's Interstellar is worse than even "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2" (IMDb rating 1.9!) Are you kidding me? There is no way that Interstellar rates below these films. I would suggest that even a person who hated this movie should appreciate the quality of direction, acting, and filmmaking.
This film may not be everyone's cup of tea but to get on IMDb and say, "I thought it was okay and would have given it a 5 or 6 but I wanted to offset all the 10 ratings so I gave it a 1", is an example of how dishonest people can be.
A movie that transcends your typical Hollywood syfy tripe, with an amazing score, phenomenal cinematography, great acting, and underpinned with well-researched science, is NOT a 1 star movie, no matter how bored you were by it.
SF story lovers should applaud any studio that risks funding and producing truly speculative science fiction. Childish ratings, especially by people who think Star Trek The Motion Picture is the pinnacle of science fiction or think "Lord of the Rings: FOTR" is a 1 star film, is laughable.