[Off-topic] ShadowLea:
This conversational method is going to get irritating, fast... :p

I wasn't just disbelieving, I was completely disappointed. The executive producer is a physicist, and they clearly ignored him on several points to 'dumb it down.'

I applaud their lack of sound in space and their attempts at teaching physics to a general audience (which probably just shuts it out anyway)... But...

Well, for major spoilers I'll hide this:

Prepare for a bit of a rant... (Sorry about that)

'Slightly' is putting it mildly. But apparently the 'plot' there was that it was humanity having evolved into 5-dimensional beings that were responsible for sending him where he needed to be. Which, for Hollywood's doing, is actually fairly "plausible" as a plot. (Not as lame as some of the plots I've seen them use.) Except that Humanity will never evolve into 5-dimensional beings, that is. It's evolutionarily impossible.

You wouldn't survive going through a black hole. If the gravity doesn't kill you outside the event horizon, the infinite gravity inside it will crush you into an absolute nothing. Provided you survive the lethal amounts of high-energy X-rays and gamma-rays it bombards you with upon approach.

FTL might make it possible, because that warps space-time.

But a simple, normal little shuttle with regular slower-than-light thrusters, no additional shielding? Going fast enough to bend gravity and time to let it 'pass through safely'? Only if you believe in walking on water and talking snakes. It is physically impossible. Not just improbable. The gravity near the event horizon would've torn his very atoms to shreds. The ship would never have made it to the actual event horizon. And we're conveniently ignoring the fact that the time-dilation effect near the rim is so massive a second there would be millions of years to 'real' (relative) time.

The radiation is a very important fact they completely ignored, which bothers me to no end as the executive producer is an actual physicist. (Meaning, it was scrapped for the sake of the audience. As per bloody usual.)

The only way we can, thus far, detect a gravitational singularity is by measuring the massive amount of high-energy X-rays and gamma-rays it emits. Both of which are lethal in large quantities. The amount of radiation that singularity is emitting would at the distance of that first planet be instantly lethal.

Speaking of that planet. 1 hour equals 7 years? The gravitational distortion would have to be immense enough to rip it completely apart. Organic beings would not even survive the approach, let alone walk on it. And how did it even still have gravity? Let alone an atmosphere?

Do you know what else a black hole emits like it's getting paid for it? Electromagnetic radiation. The kind that would kill a computer stone dead before you even hit the gravity well. Even if you shield it in the strongest EM shield possible to mankind, it would not be enough.

There's one other thing I can't get over. I can accept the artistic liberties of film over science. I can accept the dumbing down for the general population. But there's one thing that's several steps too far.

'Love'. There were a million possible options right down to genetics, causality and string theory itself they could have used. But instead, they chose the Disney approach. The only thing missing was bloody rainbows and hearts.The pointless use of sentimentality was outright degrading to the film. 'I know because I love [name]' is as outrageous as 'I know because I can smell it in my fart.'. :rolleyes:

Especially since they ended up making 'They' an evolved humanity. So, future-humanity manipulated past-humanity to love eachother? Aside from a painfully obvious plothole, it's also a paradox.

I appreciate that they tried, and I know it's 'Just a film, shut your mouth b*tch and enjoy it' (Been there, heard that, next.) But either go all the way or just don't call it scientific. Because it's not.

That said, if you don't care about the science being accurate, it's probably an enjoyable film. (After the first 30 minutes have finished dragging on.)

So, as a Hard-SciFi fan: 4/10. Too many scientific bloopers for a film that claims to be scientific. :(

As a 'modern' scifi-fan with my over-active brain occupied elsewhere: 8/10, with bonus points for the lack of cliché romance plot. :)

I probably set my expectations far, far too high. I went in to the cinema expecting to see something that was thought out, scientifically accurate and respects physics. What I got was something just a notches above Star Trek. In fact, Stargate SG-1 did the black holes science better than Nolan did.