San Francisco Chronicle, fifty cents.

Los Angeles Times, forty points.

"Voice of the Village", sixty points.

The Guardian, fifty points.

When I saw this all the failing scores, I couldn't believe that this was actually a cooperation project of "Nolan and Hall", which made people fall through the glasses.

In addition, there is also "Variety" magazine, which also gave a 60% evaluation.

"The film can unfold in a variety of ways, but unfortunately, Nolan chose to present this ambitious subject project in the most boring and least atmospheric way, completely lost in the vastness and insignificance of space, and even Hall's high-level performance failed to save the mediocrity and cheesiness of the core of the theme.

Is Nolan's understanding of family only to such an extent? Or is Nolan's film language not enough to show the intricacies and depth of human nature? Is the director who filmed "The Dark Knight" still there? The only thing to be thankful for is that those self-talk in space cannot be heard on earth. ”

Since the serious bad reviews of the "playlist", "Interstellar" has been being chased and blocked by film critics, and the harsh criticism is endless, and you can clearly feel that the hatred from industry insiders is not steel, and they can't agree with the core and theme of Nolan's story.

If you look closely at the film reviews, you can see that the criticism mainly comes from disappointment and disappointment.

"2001: A Space Odyssey", "Blade Runner" and other science fiction movies can withstand the test of time and eventually transform into classics in film history, the main reason is the exploration of human nature, in the context of science fiction - the exploration of human nature between humans and clones, humans and machines, undoubtedly raised the ideological core of the film to a new height.

But "Interstellar" has put all its focus on ...... "generating electricity with love", which is definitely a serious mistake in terms of depth and breadth of thinking. Although at the end of the movie, Lan Li once again used his performance to win back the city, giving the theme more possibilities to extend, but from the beginning of Cooper and Murphy's reunion, the whole story has lost the possibility of deep thinking, let alone stood the test of time, and now its "soap opera" essence can be seen.

This is definitely not the space epic that one would expect.

It seems that this is the most severe criticism attack on Lan Li's works since "Detachment", to be precise, even "Detachment" has not faced such a fierce attack - at least, "Detachment" is an authorial film, whether critics like it or not, they also know that the director is not trying to please the audience, but "Interstellar" is a commercial film, and communication with the audience is undoubtedly the most important, which also makes film critics full of firepower.

So, does this mean that Lan Li's "Waterloo" has appeared like this?

Sadly, the haters will have to wait a little longer.

The ferocity of the bad reviews, the suffocation and disappointment of the middle reviews, in the end, all of them were drowned in the cheers and applause of the praise, and there were 38 praises, sounding the clarion call for the "Interstellar" media comprehensive review!

"The New York Times", 100 points, "Is it another '2001: A Space Odyssey'? Apparently not! 'Interstellar' is just a very light and very personal story, putting all the focus on the theme of 'love and sacrifice', bringing about one of the heaviest and deepest emotional collisions of 2014! Nolan brings a more sincere emotional bond experience than 'Inception'. ”

The Hollywood Reporter, 100 points, "I can predict that many people will compare this film to '2001: A Space Odyssey,' which is actually a compliment, but sadly, this is not another 'Odyssey,' and Nolan is not another Kubrick." In his own way, Nolan tells a story of returning home, crossing the barriers of time and space, leaving aside the discussion of humanity and divinity, but sincerely telling the most real and intimate bonds of human beings. ”

"2001: A Space Odyssey" was originally called "2001: A Space Odyssey", borrowing from the second half of Homer's epic "Odyssey" to interpret a space adventure;

"Chicago Sun-Times", 100 points, "Undoubtedly, this is the best science fiction movie of the new century, using a thrilling space adventure to think about the meaning of life and the meaning of family, and even further explore the relationship between human beings and society, giving space science fiction movies a new vitality from another angle! The wonderful performances of the actors led by Hall, Hathaway and Chastain made the story full of countless charms and worthy of chewing." Without a doubt, this is a masterpiece!"

"Empire", 100 points, "One of the most wonderful movies in the new century! full of wisdom! full of special effects! It is also full of reflection and precipitation! It is almost equivalent to Stephen Hawking's 'Star Trek': a space opera that takes place inside the brain, and then interprets the changes of the soul in time and space, and perfectly combines science and human nature! The most surprising part is still Lan Li Hall, whose unique touch gives the character and the film an amazing unique charm, and who else can say 'no'?"

"Daily Telegraph", 100 points, "This is Nolan's most ambitious and outstanding work to date! A high degree of combination of technology and thought! Truly put all scientific theories and shooting techniques in the service of emotion, roles! roles! This is the core of the whole movie, and then give full play to the unique charm of a strong cast of actors, which is definitely enough to rank among the best in the new century, and it is a masterpiece not to be missed!"

One hundred.

One hundred.

Or a hundred points.

There are as many as ten media that have given full marks, including the "New York Times" and "The Hollywood Reporter" and other absolute authoritative media in the industry, which have laid the foundation for the media comprehensive evaluation of "Interstellar" with an unwavering attitude.

It can be clearly seen that the most dissatisfied part of the media is the "emotional" part, which is too soap opera and too sensational, and the continuous rendering completely destroys the depth and heaviness of science fiction movies - in fact, this can also be seen as the difference between "hard science fiction" and "soft science fiction", hard science fiction always has more possibilities for discussion at the technical level, so it has the possibility of extension and expansion at the level of artificial intelligence, human nature and divinity.

"Gravity" can be regarded as half an example, this work cannot be regarded as hard science fiction, but the core of the discussion of the origin of life, but has the possibility of sublimation and interpretation, so it has been unanimously praised by film critics;

The full-score media just recognized the "soft sci-fi" part, they believe that this is Nolan's exploration of human nature, although it is a little cliché and a little simple, but it also completes the foothold from science fiction to emotion - this cannot be regarded as a sublimation but should become a kind of return, so that the audience can find resonance.

Is "2001: A Space Odyssey" a classic? Yes, but that doesn't mean that all science fiction movies need to be developed in the direction of "2001: A Space Odyssey."

The same factor, which is a disadvantage in the eyes of some people, and an advantage in the eyes of others, is the difference.

In addition to the ten full-scoring media, there are also 28 media that have given good reviews, and the score range has continued from 70 points all the way to 95 points.

"Vanity Fair", 95 points, "Surprisingly, 'Interstellar' has become a fierce beast in the primeval jungle of Hollywood, the magnificent picture presents an epic feeling, and the delicate emotions awaken the resonance, and the seemingly light and simple fetters of the narrative have caused a lot of reflection." Although I know this is a cliché, ...... Lane Hall is still at the heart of the film, and his performance lights up the big screen again!"

New York Post, 90 points, "Like all successful science fiction films of the past, Christopher Nolan uses a powerful visual language and visual effects to create a space adventure, and finally refracts all the mirrors of humanity itself, examining itself through science fiction." Although Nolan's discussion was a bit narrow, there was a surprise in the depth and complexity of the discussion, and it was more sincere than any previous work. ”

"Complete Cinema", 88 points, "Although the length of the film is complaining and the third part is completely reduced to a soap opera, it still cannot hide the fact that 'Interstellar' is a space opera, which deserves all forms of praise, and really touches the softness of the heart and the deep thinking of the soul through the image, about human nature and time, and most interestingly, about the bond and loneliness between the individual and the family."

The film is so wonderful and brilliant that one can't help but wonder if we should pull all the directors and producers of science fiction movies into a screening room and watch the Stanley Kubrick storyboard – a light-year-old manuscript that is still the best in the industry, and Nolan has only learned half the skills to be a candidate for the best sci-fi movie of the new century. ”

"The Independent Telegraph", eighty-three points, "full of wisdom and full of surprises." 'Interstellar' is exactly the kind of work that the contemporary Hollywood industry desperately needs, no matter how much critics hate soap operas and sensationalism, but it is undeniable that it has found a balance between business and art, Nolan has evolved the mysterious space into a children's playground, but every image of visual effects and sound effects can provoke the audience to think, at least, it encourages you to think, about time, about family, about loneliness, and about yourself. ”