I was a little bummed about Interstellar not being as widely praised in early reviews as I expected, but being a fan of Christopher Nolan’s work, nothing would stop me from seeing the film. So I saw the film on Friday, leaving the theater by the end with my own mixed feelings about it. Upon further thought, I wondered if the initial mixed reviews I had heard about the film didn’t already contaminate my own thought process, making me feel mixed about my enjoyment of the film.
Interstellar is one of many examples of media that people aren’t able to only rely on critics’ perceptions for. They may just have to make up their own minds about their enjoyment of the film.
A different way to look at reviews is in the information offered, or what to generally expect from a film. Many reviews can give a description as to the setting and central story of a film among other information, but that description won’t be completely objective. In his review of Interstellar for the Chicago Sun-Times, Richard Roeper explained the film’s initial story and setting while pausing to give praise to the story described so far, saying the story up until that point “could have made for a great film.” Ann Hornaday for the Washington Post began her synopsis with a positive outlook on the film’s story that contrasted her previous negative reaction to the film’s overall themes. Joe Morgenstern infuses a lot of discussed plot points about the film with opinion in his review for the Wall Street Journal.
The opinion is mostly prevalent in a review, so mining for straight information can be tricky. Sometimes, a reviewer may reference a different film in relation to the current film they’re reviewing. In the case of Interstellar, many critics including Roeper and Hornaday referred to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey when discussing what Nolan’s film was trying to do. However, 2001 is considered one of the most widely acclaimed, inspirational sci-fi films, compared to the mixed reception of Nolan’s film.
Roeper’s review for Interstellar was glowing from the beginning paragraph, calling it “a beautiful and epic film” within its first sentence. A.O Scott of The New York Times said late in his review that despite not being a fan of Nolan, the film was fantastic. In contrast, a review by Hornaday said that the film did so much that it collapsed in on itself, despite doing some things well. Morgenstern’s review was mostly negative, saying that the film “is stuffed with stuff of beguiling wrongness.”
There is a lot of information and trivia to mine out of reviews, but the opinions must be taken with a grain of salt. The different ways to look at the film are interesting, as is the information, but the opinions can’t get in the way of a person’s entertainment. Whether or not knowledgeable film critics or scholars can’t come to an agreement over a film, you shouldn’t be held to their decision making, but rather appreciate their views while nurturing your own.
Maybe I will follow my own advice next time.