the first screening in Aus.
Inception at 9.05, then a 20min break, then Interstellar at 12.05.
at the 3rd largest screen in the world.
over 6hrs worth.
ive never consumed so much popcorn and coke in one sitting lol.
it was definitely amazeballs.
but im chagrined that i enjoyed Inception more (a flick that gets so much better with repeat viewings, and possibly Nolan dawg's 2nd greatest movie).
Interstellar tho...for all its scope.
and epic...ness?
was missing something.
it wasn't an all-out expository-fest as per the Nolan style, but it also didn't take the premise to any kind of NEXT level.
it felt like the experience of watching it, at IMAX, trumped the reach of the film itself. as in it fell short.

any ANYone trying to compare this to 2001 needs to shut thee entire fuck up. cos thats kinda my point above, that it had potential to reach and exceed familiar human settings and...FEELS lol, that NOLAN had potential to get real freaky with it. apart from some trippy visuals near the end and the potential planets they visited, we got a plot that could've been made for the small screen. in fact Battlestar Galactica coulda made this entire flick a 3-episode arc and have it pack more of an emotional wallop while still maintaining visual beauty and mining the depths of humanity, psychology, spirituality and beyond. WAY beyond.
Interstellar, i think, is being sold as that kinda film, but it's really a small-scale feature made with a ginormous budget. its interests are micro in nature. the space stuff isn't meticulous or detailed, which is why we jump straight into the action i guess and we circle right back around to Coop and his family.

ALSO, and this is the big one, everything from wormholes to black holes to gravity to the fucking big bang theory are all just that: THEORY. it's ALL guesswork, and most of it is probably WRONG. so anyone claiming this is "scientifically accurate" is blowing smoke up your and their ass.
simultaneously.
doesn't matter if Kip Thorne is a consultant on the film to ensure its "accuracy", he's a 'theoretical physicist'. which means he's basing his prognostications on bullshit. true science is discovering the universe doing absolutely weird shit every single day that doesn't adhere to any of these so-called standards. therefore the film is still wholly science FICTION. just wanted to say that before ppl start getting boners about the films depiction of anything in space being "accurate".

overall, im on the fence. i enjoyed it for it was, for sure, the IMAX experience kinda makes it hard NOT to enjoy. but i could see what it COULD'VE been, and that disappoints me somewhat. in the end, Nolan made the flick he wanted to make, not the one i *wanted*, so for that i dug it.

V.