Interstellar is like the comedian having to explain and dissect the now-magicless joke.

Rating: 5/10 (22 November 2014)

Interstellar is like trying to consume a 10-inch slice of pizza in your mouth without chewing: we know the pizza is always good, and we know that the more pizza the better, but then after a point it becomes pure overkill. That is what Interstellar is: cinematic overkill that overstays its welcome, overstays its logic, and lingers around long enough for you to notice the rapidly-thinning plot. The technical aspects were indeed spectacular in every sense of the way, which arguably keeps the movie afloat for as long as it possibly can before the third act weighs everything down with its left field conclusion.
What really limits Interstellar more than anything else is the plot and the script. Movies that use a backdrop as vast and expansive as space needs a smaller story to keep the audience and the logic in check. This is what worked for Wall-E, Gravity, and to a lesser extent 2001: A Space Odyssey. With Interstellar however, too much is explained, and the audience is required to make massive leaps of faith that we may not be willing to make---especially after already going through two hours of it. The dialogue is slightly overblown and loses authenticity, and by the climax too much is being discussed and not enough is being shown.
The performances and the technical details keep the dialogue and story from disappointing us too much. Matthew McConaughey carries this film well as he becomes simply a man concerned about the future of his family in the midst of the grand space adventure that takes too many twists and turns that requires a second viewing to fully realize it all. Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Caine did a swell job with the minimal material handed to them. They each added a sense of believability to a plot that was quite devoid of them as the movie went on.
The cinematography and special effects were top-notch, although they suffered a few setbacks if you compare them to 2013's Gravity. Interstellar hides its space scope with far too many closeups of the crew in the space station, when there was an entire universe to be explored. The other locales themselves were quite lacking in eyecandy and creativity, leading to us longing for more scenes of outer space.
Also hurting this film was that too much was happening at the same time, not in plot but in presentation. Sometimes the dialogue audio was battling the musical score and sound effects, resulting in a loud mass that made it tough to hear and comprehend the scene. In the case of Gravity and 2001, it was made sure the music was front and center, toning down just slightly when dialogue was needed to be said.
Christopher Nolan is a go-big-or-go-home type of director. Simplicity is not in his resume, he loves his stories and films complex, full of wonder, full of questions, and full of awe-inspiring scenes. However, simplicity is what is definitely lacking in Interstellar. If the film spent more time showing instead of telling, then we would have had a better visual feast ahead of us. A movie of this kind, with so much room to explore, needs to be more like Jurassic Park (simple, yet incredibly thrilling) and less like Contact (psychologically and philosophically inducing).
I truly wanted to enjoy this movie, considering the time, effort, and sheer labor put in to this cinematic space opera. But the entire affair was too bloated, too overdone, and just altogether didn't leave much to the imagination. Each of the pieces were good from the acting to the directing to the cinematography to the special effects. But altogether none of it really meshed, even with a running time of over 160 minutes.
In space, nobody can hear you. In the movie theater however, every yawn can indeed be heard, now matter how pretty it looked...