Interstellar (2014)

[JoeCrowe 0]

A lot of movies are like shooting fish in a barrel. They're too easy to make fun of. Hilarious. But too easy.

 

This one got Academy Award nominations and such.

 

And it makes LITERALLY NO SENSE.

[seanotron 2307]

This one is beyond a longshot for the show, but I'm curious as to what you thought made no sense? Anything specific or just the entire premise?

[Bugs Meany 69]

There is zero comedic potential here.

[DeathToMikeyBay 130]

It made sense. It just stretched suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point and was full of plot contradictions (chicken before the egg paradox with the wormhole).

 

The only things you could really say about it was that it felt like a mini-series compressed into a movie, and that the script was 2001 for people who needed everything spelled out to them by the characters.

[seanotron 2307]

[RyanSz 3140]

I actually wanted to like this movie but I just could not get into it. From the ham-fisted "we need to reach for the stars" message to the fact there were scenes pulled directly from other movies i.e. the explanation of wormholes was a near direct rip from Event Horizon. Also did anyone notice it mimicked the How I Met Your Mother finale where the whole goal of McConaughey's character was to get back to his daughter, but once he does after DECADES of being away, she tells him it doesn't matter and he needs to go for the woman that he had not real romantic connection to at all?

[jarrycanada 2483]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYHdQUyOunA

 

People are so misinformed about that clip, he's crying because he found out that a Lincoln isn't considered by most people to be a luxury car.

[Ribelin2000 23]

People on this board are tearing this movie apart, but it still got better reviews than Batman Begins (check out Metacritic and see for yourself).

 

There should be a rule here: any movie that gets a Generally Favorable Reviews score from Metacritic is disqualified from HDTGM.

[jarrycanada 2483]

People on this board are tearing this movie apart, but it still got better reviews than Batman Begins (check out Metacritic and see for yourself).

 

There should be a rule here: any movie that gets a Generally Favorable Reviews score from Metacritic is disqualified from HDTGM.

 

I give it 5 stars on amazon. If I wrote a review. I very much enjoyed this movie for what it was and I would maybe watch it again.

[RyanSz 3140]

People on this board are tearing this movie apart, but it still got better reviews than Batman Begins (check out Metacritic and see for yourself).

 

There should be a rule here: any movie that gets a Generally Favorable Reviews score from Metacritic is disqualified from HDTGM.

That would disqualify movies like Fast 5-6 and the upcoming Face/Off which has a higher Metascore than Interstellar. I don't think they movie would be good for the show, but that's not to say it didn't have problems, but there are no movies that are perfect.

[Ribelin2000 23]

Then those movies should be disqualified.

[Bugs Meany 69]

There should be a rule here: any movie that gets a Generally Favorable Reviews score from Metacritic is disqualified from HDTGM.

This is hard to quantify but again, is there any comedic potential? There are plenty of things to poke at and question, but that's not the same as HDTGM-style dissection. I'm trying to imagine how this would sound on the podcast and coming up with nothing.

 

ETA: The only funny thing I can imagine is Jason making inappropriate comments about how hot Mackenzie Foy (young Murph) is going to be, but similar ground was already covered on the Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 episode. She played Renesmee [sic], on whom Taylor Lautner's Jacob has "imprinted." Translation: they're eventually going to the bone-zone.

[RyanSz 3140]

Then those movies should be disqualified.

No because there are movies that got great reviews but still have things that can be made fun of or looked at through the lens of the show. Furious 7 for example has 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and generally favorable on Metacritic, but there is boatloads of stuff to talk about with that movie. Even Best Picture nominees like Django Unchained, Wolf Of Wall Street, and others have moments that make you turn your head and go WTF. Interstellar doesn't fit the mold of the show because there weren't any real topics to cover for comedic purpose as Bugs has mentioned, but just because it got good reviews doesn't mean it should be considered.

[Ribelin2000 23]

Uh, no. The name of the show is "How Did This Get Made?" as in, "How did a movie this bad make it to film?". It's supposed to be about bad movies, not movies that simply have weird moments in them. Buy a clue.

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

This is my favorite Christopher Nolan film. McConaughey emoting HARD and long digressions about inter-dimensional travel and time dilation? Holy fuck, this is MY Fast and Furious.

[Bugs Meany 69]

Uh, no. The name of the show is "How Did This Get Made?" as in, "How did a movie this bad make it to film?". It's supposed to be about bad movies, not movies that simply have weird moments in them. Buy a clue.

Not only that, Nolan's previous three films were MASSIVELY successful. That's how it got made.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

Uh, no. The name of the show is "How Did This Get Made?" as in, "How did a movie this bad make it to film?". It's supposed to be about bad movies, not movies that simply have weird moments in them. Buy a clue.

They can be crazy, and crazy doesn't necessarily mean bad.

[DreamWorrier 17]

They can be crazy, and crazy doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Agreed. Although most of the films covered might be considered 'bad', talking about films that have some other reason for making us ask 'how the hell did this get made' has been part of the show since at least as far back as episode 20 (Punisher: War Zone).

[RyanSz 3140]

Uh, no. The name of the show is "How Did This Get Made?" as in, "How did a movie this bad make it to film?". It's supposed to be about bad movies, not movies that simply have weird moments in them. Buy a clue.

 

I get why the show is called what it is, I don't need a clue on that, but it is not just about about bad movies though or movies that have been lambasted by critics, the show has covered movies that were not hated by critics but in fact well received by them: Fast movies, Face/Off, Sleepaway Camp which has an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes, or Devil's Advocate and the Crank movies which got generally favorable reviews. What has been stated is what the show is about, while most may be bad, there are also movies that have been generally or at times universally liked by people but still have moments that are crazy or bad. And honestly, Insterstellar is not even the most egregious movie to be mentioned on this board, you can go back to the summer of 2013 when every week a person was creating an account on Earwolf to nominate the big movie that had come out that weekend, either to be a troll or to be nitpicky jerks. But bad means so many things, not just critic reviews, though they do play a part in deciding what is bad or crazy.

[jarrycanada 2483]

staying out of this one...

[JoeCrowe 0]

My purpose in nominating this is summed up in the tagline for this board: "What stinking pile of Hollywood bullshit should we cover next?"

 

Talented comedians can make anything funny. Just movies that overtly "ask for it" such as Birdemic or Sharknado are not the only scope of HDTGM. The question "How Did This Get Made" applies to the indecipherable plot, weird emoting and bizarre ending -- despite the talented cast and director.

 

Success at the box office or with critics should never make any movie immune from criticism / comedy / discussion.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

My purpose in nominating this is summed up in the tagline for this board: "What stinking pile of Hollywood bullshit should we cover next?"

 

Talented comedians can make anything funny. Just movies that overtly "ask for it" such as Birdemic or Sharknado are not the only scope of HDTGM. The question "How Did This Get Made" applies to the indecipherable plot, weird emoting and bizarre ending -- despite the talented cast and director.

 

Success at the box office or with critics should never make any movie immune from criticism / comedy / discussion.

Maybe they CAN make anything funny, but do they want to? There isn't much to go on with "Interstellar", aside from what was basically the "Fuck science, the secret ingredient was LOVE all along!" kind of stuff and the fact that our hero doesn't really give a shit about the other kid that ISN'T a total brainiac. If they're going to tackle sci-fi that absolutely misses the mark, I'd much rather see them tackle "Southland Tales".

[RyanSz 3140]

How haven't they covered Southland Tales yet? It has a car fucking another car in it!

[Lando 2019]

Say what you will about the story of this movie, but it actually lead to a scientific breakthrough:

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/

[DeathToMikeyBay 130]

But it wasn't indecipherable with a bizarre ending. In fact, it was the exact opposite of that being that it was just 2001 padded out with unnecessary action scenes and Chris Nolan on the nose dialog. Not a turd, just a bag of potato chips with pretty packaging.

 

"How Did This Get Made?" Easy, they got a massively successful director following the massive success of Gravity with a special effects spectacle tied together with a simple emotional hook, and the result was a passable summer blockbuster. Not much to get out of that.