There is science fiction, there is space opera, there is science fantasy, and there are superhero stories. The reader or the viewer needs to make a judgement about what kind of story they are in and dial the suspension of disbelief to a level that works. Is this 2001, or is this Star Wars? Once I know what kind of universe I am in I am cool and set my expectations accordingly. Interstellar tries to be at the science fiction end of the spectrum and fails miserably. It's like watching the 1960s TV show "Lost in Space" except that the protagonists are idiots this time. That is my major beef with this movie. A more minor issue is that rather than letting the camera tell the story, Chris Nolan subjects us to what seems like days of exposition which turns out to be meaningless science babble anyhow. The soundtrack is impressive only for its dynamic range. The film was shot and edited so that it only really works visually in IMAX. Good for 70mm film activism, but bad for Cinema. (The last film that touted 70mm as a selling point was "Far and Away". 'nuff said.) Aside from that, Matthew McConaughey does a great job as Cooper and Anne Hathaway is more than convincing as Brand. If you can get over your anger at the first two and a quarter hours, the last 35 minutes is actually pretty good and satisfying. There are a couple of very good ideas in this film and they come to the fore at the end. I am a huge fan of Christopher Nolan as a director. Other than "Batman Begins" and "Inception" all of his other films that I have seen are outstanding, and "Inception" is more than good. "Memento" is a masterpiece. This movie is Nolan's "Waterworld." BTW "Waterworld" wasn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to say.