Sci-fi... melodrama? There are very few good movies about space. Therefore, the attempt to create Interstellar deserves attention. In the film, with the participation of real physicists, they tried to explain to the audience what a black hole, a wormhole, and for the first time showed how the accretion disk of a black hole should really look like. What else? With “Interstellar” happened a situation similar to that presented in the film “The meaning of life according to Monty Python”. In it, doctors fill the operating equipment. As a result, the operating room looks very impressive, but something is still missing. The doctors realized they had forgotten the patient. So we have special effects, actors, budgets, science consultants, high-end marketing, but something is missing. Oh, right, they forgot the story. This is a common problem with films with an abundance of special effects. You can draw all the attention of the viewer flashing pictures, and then he will forget about the chain of the story. The story in Interstellar is a disaster. I’m not going to dwell on the little nonsense that would be enough for a small book. The problem with the film is that the plot moves are sucked out of the finger and serve to make the next action scene possible.
NASA, which was first closed and then opened, plans to save humanity by colonizing another star system. At the same time, society is being taught that we need to think less about the stars and the cosmos, and direct all our efforts to survival on Earth. This is no doubt a cunning plan to convince the public that what the government is trying to achieve is meaningless. Governments usually try to discredit their actions in the eyes of the public. NASA also has gifted people. They develop the project, keeping it secret from the main applicant for participation. What, to surprise him? No, they make a surprise for the viewer, but how stupid.
Blows up the brain scene of people getting into another star system. They just surpassed Columbus and Gagarin combined. Their reaction? Zero reaction. How could such an opportunity have been missed? The film is generously flavored with pathetic dialogues about the fate of humanity, family and civilizational problems. Because of this, the characters become cardboard, and it is no longer interesting to follow their fate. But this is the moment to push something deep and pathetic. No, the heroes behave as if they were in an ordinary situation. You'd think their coffee maker had broken down and they were discussing whether to fix the old one or buy a new one. What follows is a chain of events justified only by the desire for spectacle. In the process, the scientist rushes into reasoning that “love is not a fiction of mankind, it is a tangible magnitude, a force.” That doesn't sound like a scientist. At least because it makes no sense. Clearly, love is not made up. Does anyone question that? How can a magnitude be tangible? How important are these words in your situation? One planet is better for colonization than another. “Guys, humanity is more likely to survive on that planet because love tells me so.” Here we go. The creators, apparently, feared that a movie with only arguments about gravity and the curvature of space may not beat the budget, and added melodramas. In "Interstellar" regrets, tearful screams and snot in general excess. The authors tried to sit on two chairs: to show at the same time how a simple family man-farmer-engineer flies into space, and how a philosophizing scientist, like Tsiolkovsky, tries to escape from the earth’s cradle. As a result, science fiction did not work. We have a space drama.
