Muddled yet, well done Sci-Fi

Rating: 7/10 (16 December 2014)

(NOTE: I DON'T CONSIDER THESE SPOILERS BUT SOME MIGHT, NO GIVEAWAYS, JUST DISCUSSION).
A paradox. Christopher Nolan is like an Escher drawing or Rubick's Cube. But puzzles don't make great films. They make great puzzles. At 8.9 on IMDb (at this writing), Interstellar has to rank as one of the most overrated films of all time (e.g, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club). Overrated doesn't mean bad, BTW. Was it justifiable at $165 million? No. I actually rate this 7.5/10, a thoroughly enjoyable film, one of the year's best 10 films. And maybe among the best 25-30 sicfis of all time. It is actually superior to the critically better- received Gravity. So what's the puzzle this time?
ANSWER: Love is the Sixth Dimension. Really, it transcends space, like gravity and time. Even the movie has a couple quotes that suggest it. Love makes the world go round. Preach, Nolan.
What's great about the film? Excellent cinematography (9.5), strong acting (9.0, particularly by Michael Caine, Matthew McConaughey, and Jessica Chastain), great directing (9.5, this is actually one of Nolan's best directed films), great editing, great special effects, good soundtrack (not amazing but it certainly fits with the film). I saw Interstellar in an IMAX with butt-kicking seatsso I really did feel like I was taking off in a spaceship or I hit the ground when it crashed. So that clearly added to the fun!
I would rank this as one of Nolan's 3-4 best films: The Dark Knight (rate 8.5), Batman Begins (rate 9.0+), Memento (8.0+). Inception (6.5) is vastly overrated. The problem is that Nolan has tapped into what fans like. Puzzles. He found that out with Memento and carried it a bit too far with Inception. So now he has a trademark. The film scored 73% on Rottentomatoes.comwhich is about where I would put it. Maybe it should be 80%-85%?
The plot, despite some criticism, was inaccurate but solid fun. However, what hurts the movie (according to those who criticized it):
1. Weak writing. The Nolans should have have a scifi writer and physicist join their team. I'll go over a few wormholesI mean, loopholes. 2. Length of the movie. At 168 minutes, it gets redundant. 3. Too much dialogue. 4. Couldn't decide what it wanted to do or say.
Issues with writing (plot): 1. The issue of a world dying. Well, it starts off that way talking about failed crops and dust bowls but they don't get worstin the about 25 years time span, we still see crops and no one starving. Nolan needs to rethink how he would draw his future world. Just unconvincing. 2. NASA and farmers. The moon missions were claimed to be a big propaganda. So if they were, how does the government convince people to start traveling into space? That is, government has to convince people to do what they just unconvinced people. That doesn't make sense. Now it really becomes the big lie? The same as how Cooper and his daughter find NASA with coordinates. So if NASA doesn't want to be known, why the big floodlights and "why are you here?" Realistically, they would send some local police to escort Cooper off the grounds. A better idea might be allowing Cooper to break in and get caught. Not NASA saying, It's us! How did you find us!" Rather silly. 3. Building on #2. So NASA realizes they have been caught by a farmer. So you invite the farmer to fly a spaceship? Silly. A more plausible plot is directly approach Cooper to work for NASA again. Or Cooper finding secrets and NASA inquiring hownot a trip and fall into the spaceship routine. 4. Blackhole and travel. So they really are going to explore a planet next to a black hole and dying star? Moving from an Earth that isn't dying to a dying star. Doesn't make sense. Along with that, how do you get transported from a black hole back to Saturn? It wasn't a wormhole. How did he survive in a black hole, how did he communicate? But I think the Nolans were confused themselves. They might have miswrote it and filmgoers just accept and try to explain why. Sometimes writer make mistakes. Like we always see a film with a goof. I don't have too much problem with the scienceor really stretch of science, but if you assume something can happen, than they need to stick with that and not change the rest. So it appears they confused the wormhole and black hole. Some people suggest "They" created the portal in the black hole. But we later find out, maybe "They" isn't "They" so maybe Cooper created it. But how? If he and Murph were the originatorshow did it get there? 5. The first planet and water. Shouldn't TARS be retrieving the data? What's wrong with these people? It doesn't really flow. More like teenagers in a horror movie trying to get killed. Aren't you trying not to get killed? But then, horror movies would lose their victims. 6. Matt Damon. He doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if his character is needed. It was all of a sudden, mad scientist time. 7. Professor Brand's ego. It's stated he knew the solution but didn't want let others know since he wanted space exploration. Really? But he was a part of space-denying NASA? And everyone knew the world was dying? So what's not to say leaving Earth is a good idea? Apparently Brand wasn't convinced a dying planet was a valid reason to leave Earth. Confusing, I know. A flaw in the script. And realistically, a scientist would have reacted the opposite and seek to prove his solution works. But only in the Nolan world of puzzles.