Interstellar on Blu-Ray

cnh

Just rented this, probably take a look tonight. No expectations one way or the other yet!

Tony, what are you babbling about, you aren't even "religious"; why should you care about the stories in Exodus and Noah? I haven't bothered viewing either though.

Heston in the Ten Commandments? Love him or hate him, he had that Moses thing down and Yul wasn't bad as the Pharoah either! As a kid in a movie theater on a Saturday afternoon with a CAST OF THOUSANDS and an intermission that let you hit the concession stand twice for one movie: Those were the days!

AsSiMiLaTeD

cascius wrote: »

I just watched it last night and actually enjoyed it. I was afraid it was going to be another gravity, but I thought it turned out much better. Thanks for the recommendation

Yeah this is on a whole different level than Gravity, I'm not saying everyone will like it better but this movie clearly has a different focus. There's something nostalgic about Interstellar (at least to me) that I can't quite put my finger on, Gravity was a fun watch for sure but didn't have the same impact on me.

headrott

Gravity was not good, IMO. This movie was very very good, IMO.

From my perspective, Interstellar is trying to remind us about something that we already know. I believe this is why some people find the Black Hole portion "wierd".

The effectiveness of how much this movie reminds us of what we already know is debatable. It does make the attempt, however, which is why I find this to be a very very good movie.

Something about "bring all things to your remembrance" and "for now we see through a glass darkley" come to mind..........

drumminman

Rented this from our cable provider Thu night. Didn't like it as it seems to require a degree in theoretical physics to follow the turns and twists in the plot. Had to read a plot synopsis to understand how/why the f**k he got behind the bookcase and other little mysteries.

My pet peeve is it was overly complicated for the story line, which wasn't really all that hard to understand. It was a 48 hour rental so I could have watched it again, but had better things to do with those three hours.

gce

Wow, so many mixed reviews. I think I'll just stream this from Vudu and if I like it check it out on blueray. It seems like people have to see this more then one time to figure it out.

gudnoyez

Well you guys got me interested on this. I for one loved Gravity bought, it Sandra Bullock in 3D you bet. I see Interstellar is not available in 3D but Anne Hathaway is in it and Michael Caine. I have to decide if I should buy this at Walmart when getting things for Easter dinner or just stopping by family video or the red box and just rent the blu ray. Is it a worthy purchase or a rental only movie?

tonyb

Don't know about you guys, but for me to buy a movie it has to have more than one criteria like low bass sounds. I don't buy a movie because of it's sound, cinematography. First and foremost it has to be a good movie, even just somewhat decent. Intersteller was neither for me. Just to be fair too, Gravity wasn't either.

westmassguy

Gravity was awful, a complete bore-fest. I just got Interstellar, so hopefully it will be several orders of magnitude better, Although Matthew McConaughey makes my skin crawl.

Strong Bad

I enjoyed this movie more watching at home than in the theater. The Blu Ray is outstanding and yes, was waiting for my house to cave in from the LFE.

As far as the movie itself, a lot of people that didn't like it (not pointing to anyone in here) seem to not pay attention enough. This is the type of movie that demands 100% of your attention. It's not like a Transformers movie where you can run off for 5 or 10 minutes, then come back to things still exploding and find out you didn't miss anything plot wise. Interstellar is heavy on the science and does explain things as you go along, ya just have to listen and pay attention.

There were some things I missed in the theater simply due to distractions and not being able to hear dialog clearly. At home, no problem!

Big thumbs up from me!

tonyb

Oh, I paid attention. Aside from the science of it, I paid attention to the bad acting, the holes in the story, the jumping around, spotty character building....and sound that was more annoying because it actually got in the way of your attention to the story.

If you like it, so be it....run out and buy it. Won't get anymore of my money though.

Polkie2009

westmassguy wrote: »

Gravity was awful, a complete bore-fest. I just got Interstellar, so hopefully it will be several orders of magnitude better, Although Matthew McConaughey makes my skin crawl.

I hear what you're saying Dave, I was disappointed with the Gravity storyline and weak ending. Audio and video wise ,it was substantial. I'm not a huge fan of Matthew McConaughey either. I'll keep an eye open in case someone will sell a used blu ray of this in the for sale section.

Mikey081057

i purchased the Blu Ray and watched it last nite...I fell asleep in the middle of it.. and need to watch it again... I woke up to Matt Damon acting like an A**Hole ... Maybe he wasn't acting..

westmassguy

Mikey081057 wrote: »

i purchased the Blu Ray and watched it last nite...I fell asleep in the middle of it.. and need to watch it again... I woke up to Matt Damon acting like an A**Hole ... Maybe he wasn't acting..

LOL

whgarrett1394

I had huge expectations for Interstellar. Had been waiting a while for its release. I left the theater pleasantly satisfied. I think that a couple of the scenes were poorly directed. Rushed, but overall an epic adventure.

I love Gravity. I have seen it three times.

I have the blu ray of Exodus right now. I have a feeling i may enjoy it. I liked Noah too.

To each their own

[Deleted User]

This movie will test two things.

If you have a projector with a wide 2.35 screen, I don't care if you are using lens memory, panamorph or prism, if will eff up your experience and test your projector. Calling out Panasonic, JVC, and Sony.

I have not experienced a movie with this much LFE. It is insane. If you are in the market for a bad **** movie sub, this is a modern movie to demo. It is insane.

I watched this movie at home and I do admit, I did not sit through every second of it. But if you have any ounce as a video or audiophile, it is very hard to miss what this movie did.

Halen

danz1906

halenhoang wrote: »

This movie will test two things.

If you have a projector with a wide 2.35 screen, I don't care if you are using lens memory, panamorph or prism, if will eff up your experience and test your projector. Calling out Panasonic, JVC, and Sony.

I have not experienced a movie with this much LFE. It is insane. If you are in the market for a bad **** movie sub, this is a modern movie to demo. It is insane.

I watched this movie at home and I do admit, I did not sit through every second of it. But if you have any ounce as a video or audiophile, it is very hard to miss what this movie did.

Halen

Agreed....This is the LFE Movie of the Year!!!

gudnoyez

Yeah got this yesterday like everyone says the LFE is crazy good and it shook the basement pretty good. I enjoyed it great picture and sound, worth a view.

voltz

I finally saw it last night, thought it was a good movie worth a watch. don't want to give any spoilers so I'll leave it at that!

cnh

Passable at best. The script was messed with, the original ending would have been better. The special effects were OK but NOT breathtaking. Too much PLOT and personal interest stuff going on. Revelation at the end, a little worn and trite, perhaps. The science? There is certainly some there, and some is interesting though hardly "difficult" to follow unless you have science dyslexia-if that's a thing?

WHAT is the main problem with this FILM? It is trying to be a NEW version of a Kubrick classic (2001). So it's grand and a little pretentious, and slightly enigmatic but NOT enigmatic enough. And it fails to be that because it chokes on its ending and also in a number of other places. I was not particularly impressed with the robotic choice either?

If you're a DIEHARD sci-fi fan then you should see it. I'm sure it must look really cool in its iMax or whatever theatrical glory format it was filmed in.

And I agree, cast someone other than Matt M. in the lead! I don't like the boy. He's irritating!

I give it a 3 of 5 for effort! NO SPOILERS! Maybe INTERFILLER would have been a better title? lol

mikeyb128

When I saw this in the imax, I went at a friends recommendation. I actually had no idea what it was about. It was good, but I have to agree it demands your attention. Some parts are weird, but watching it a second time around really clarified a lot of things for me, and in turn I liked it better. I did like gravity first time around, second time around I found myself on my phone. Noah was terrible, I'm not religious, but grew up in a religious family, was kind of sad to see Noah Hollywood-ized.

cnh

xcapri79 wrote: »

If we only had the review from Mike LoManaco, but he was banned.

I'm waiting for Mike LoKeiko, who, I believe took over his duty with the SHORTER review! I miss LoKeiko's reviews. Hey Mike? Where are you?

AsSiMiLaTeD

CNH, check out the special feature stuff on the disc, there's one segment about the robots and when you watch that you'll get a better idea of why they went that direction. You may not like it, but at least maybe it'll make sense.

I'd still like someone who didn't care for the movie such as yourself to watch the Making of series on the disc (not sure on the 'Science of' piece yet as I've not watched it) and see if that changes your opinion at all. Given your issues with the movie I'm guessing no, but it may explain some of the decisions you seem to have an issue with.

It's one thing not to like a movie, another entirely to call it garbage (as a couple people earlier in the thread did). I'm not sure I believe that any rational human being could watch all the work and attention to detail that went into this movie and still call it garbage, even if it's not their cup of tea.

AsSiMiLaTeD

If you were looking for a purely scientific film without much of the human element included (you know "love and all that"), I'd suggest checking out Primer. I also really enjoyed that one, it's a demanding but very short movie.

cnh

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

CNH, check out the special feature stuff on the disc, there's one segment about the robots and when you watch that you'll get a better idea of why they went that direction. You may not like it, but at least maybe it'll make sense.

I'd still like someone who didn't care for the movie such as yourself to watch the Making of series on the disc (not sure on the 'Science of' piece yet as I've not watched it) and see if that changes your opinion at all. Given your issues with the movie I'm guessing no, but it may explain some of the decisions you seem to have an issue with.

It's one thing not to like a movie, another entirely to call it garbage (as a couple people earlier in the thread did). I'm not sure I believe that any rational human being could watch all the work and attention to detail that went into this movie and still call it garbage, even if it's not their cup of tea.

Will do, I'll take a look at that. But I do believe that the science is pretty sound, at least according to a number of astrophysicists. I don't have any problems there. If there is an explanation for the robots that makes sense, I'm open to it.

Let me clarify that I did NOT dislike the film. I am the master of the LOW rating. When I give something a 3 out of 5 that is like, well you should probably see it! I've given a 5 to less than a handful of films in the history of cinema so I'm like that reviewer on SNL, (Jebidiah Atkinson-newspaper critic from 1860), lol

I remember one of my colleagues once retorting, "You wouldn't think ANY lecture was great unless Einstein or Hegel was giving it during the time of their most revolutionary period!"

So a 3 is "not bad", a 4 is "pretty good", and a 5 is "Forgetaboutit, it's GREAT! But in NORMAL parlance that means 3 is good, 4 a must see, and 5 still means the same!

My main problem with the film is pretty simple-see the allusion to 2001.

Nolan is NOT a Kubrick, and two Nolans do NOT equal an Arthur C. Clarke. That's all I'm saying. I DO believe this film is "straining", consciously, to be the 2001 of its generation. But that doesn't mean they didn't put everything they could into this. And on my rating scale 2001 is only a 4. So a 3 really isn't that bad here. I like Nolan's stuff but he's not ONE of the GREAT ONES! But he is "good" which would put him in the top 5 percent, good company there!

westmassguy

I finally finished watching it over a two day period. 2 hours and 47 minutes I'll never get back. How Matthew McConaughey continues to get work I'll never understand, and the lead role at that. The female characters were easy on the eyes however.
The science part I got, but way too much time spent in the corn fields. There's a blight, we got it, move on. The special effects were good, not great. To their credit, they did get one thing right, which most space operas do not, there's no sound in space. This could have easily been edited down to two hours at most.
The LFE track is definitely the new demo for my system. My SVS was shaking the house off its foundation.
As a side note, the changing aspect ratios were odd to say the least. If this were something I planned on watching more than once, I'd re-encode it, and crop it to a constant 2.35 to 1, but that's just me.

jeremymarcinko

The changing aspect serves a utilitarian purpose. It is a technique used to speed up or slow down the action. I wide screen is used to create the effect of faster action as it draws the eyes back and forth horizontally. A full screen adds information on the top and bottom which encourages the eyes to stay centered, thus creating a sense of space. Prior to digital video changing aspects was impractical, but it is now becoming a more frequently used tool.

westmassguy

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

The changing aspect serves a utilitarian purpose. It is a technique used to speed up or slow down the action. I wide screen is used to create the effect of faster action as it draws the eyes back and forth horizontally. A full screen adds information on the top and bottom which encourages the eyes to stay centered, thus creating a sense of space. Prior to digital video changing aspects was impractical, but it is now becoming a more frequently used tool.

In a theater, perhaps, but on my 52" it was distracting to say the least.

Hermitism

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

The changing aspect serves a utilitarian purpose. It is a technique used to speed up or slow down the action. I wide screen is used to create the effect of faster action as it draws the eyes back and forth horizontally. A full screen adds information on the top and bottom which encourages the eyes to stay centered, thus creating a sense of space. Prior to digital video changing aspects was impractical, but it is now becoming a more frequently used tool.

It encouraged my eyes to stay centered on the stop button on my remote. Ahaha! I was so looking forward to this movie, but I thought the beginning was too long. In fact, I was waiting for him to build a baseball diamond in the corn field so "they would come". The middle was good. The Jessica Chastain parts were almost used for "private time", if you catch my meaning. She's hawt. I thought the ending was terrible. Once Matt Damon appeared, I was waiting for Ben Affleck to pop out of one of the cracker jack box robots. Even the voice of Siri would have been a better choice for those robots.

Polkie2009

Wth, Matt Damon is in this too? Can't stand the guy, what a tosser.

Hermitism

I wonder if the spaceship they were in was a Lincoln?

"It’s not about about the corn. It's not about the blight. It’s not about being wasteful either. You’ve just gotta find that balance. Where taking care of your spaceship takes care of more than just yourself. That’s the sweet spot.”