"Interstellar" is a reason to go to a movie theater. It earns every penny spent to view it in the best projection format available: IMAX, 70mm, Digital. Spend your money to see Christopher Nolan's vision of "anywhere but Earth." You will get your money's worth, and as a bonus, you'll get to see his vision of a near-future Earth that is both glorious and melancholy. Nolan is a member of those film Directors (eg, Lars van Trier, Zack Snyder, James Cameron and of course Stanley Kubrick) who are able to share via film an artistic vision that validates the medium. Film is first and foremost, visual. Film epitomizes the first rule of writing even more than written prose itself: Show, don't tell.

An argument could be made that the early 20th Century gave us the best of what film can be. Absent any dialogue except the occasional narrative "blackboard" frames, film makers and the performers had to tell their story visually. But I'm not a film "Luddite" and I don't support that argument. The ability to include a soundtrack allowed films to tell stories more complex, more nuanced and more culturally and socially important than silent film ever could. But still film is first and foremost; a visual medium.

Christopher Nolan understands and uses the palette of film exquisitely. His breakthrough film "Memento" is legendary for its ability to require repeated "viewings" to understand its shrewdly-(visually) depicted story. "Inception" is so filled with visual cues and clues that many people who like/love the movie have, even after repeated viewings, yet to "see it all." (What did the top do? Anyone? Anyone?) To date Nolan is best known for his "'Dark Knight'" Batman" films, which owe as much of their success to the "look" of them as do the the earlier Tim Burton (another visual director) films. (BTW, I believe Michael Keaton portrayed the Batman better than anyone ever has or will) Christopher Nolan's genius is that he: Understands that film is primarily visual, empathizes with an audience's requirements for visual story-telling and most importantly, can get it on film.

All that said, Christopher Nolan is not a great screenwriter. He is very good, but with "Interstellar," like all his films, he needs a script-doctor. Ref: "Inception." For me, that film's singular flaw is its failure to involve me emotionally. While Nolan the Director feels through his visuals, a large portion of the audience needs...words. Movie audiences want captions to the pictures. Somewhere, deep inside, I think Christopher Nolan thinks this is a flaw and wants to correct it.

Good luck with that.

Blah, blah, blah...now, to "Interstellar." I saw the film in IMAX Digital with THX sound. As I said at my beginning, "Interstellar" rewarded my theater going experience absolutely. Nolan gave me, visually, both an interstellar and a humanity in descent to extinction experience, I can't diminish. Optically and sonically "Interstellar" is a state of the art accomplishment. On Earth, Nolan evoked in me fear, anger, frustration, ambition and hope. In his non-Earth I felt curiosity, wonder, ambition, awe and humor.

But I never felt human.

Many of our best visual directors are great screenwriters; James Cameron and Peter Jackson come to mind. Many are not: Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick direct great scripts written primarily by others. Nolan probably belongs among the latter. "Interstellar" is prime evidence of this. His best (in my opinion) movies were co-written by screenwriters who understood the verbal element of film making. For lack of this "Interstellar" suffers.

I look forward to purchasing a Blu-Ray edition of "Interstellar" because I want to view the movie. By this I mean I want to turn off the soundtrack and see what is there to be seen. I will also view the film with soundtrack but edited to my own preferences because my opinion is that in its theatrical release, Nolan...tried too hard.

Here's my thinking: Nolan wants "Interstellar" to be "2001 A Space Odyssey" vis State-of-the-art film making. Visually and sonically he accomplishes this goal. "Interstellar"'s problem is its source material. While "2001..." was the product of one of the most sophisticated, erudite and educated imaginations we will ever know (Arthur C. Clark) "Interstellar" is the product of a brilliant film maker. Clark was a scientist with the ability to create verbal analogies of his visions, and working with Kubrick we have that vision on film. Nolan is a movie director, possibly the best of his generation, who requires writers who can give him scripts that in their dialogue equate...fulfill, the promise their visual presentations make.

To wit: It is one thing to rely on/anticipate your audience's cultural literacy (Ariadne anyone? Anyone?) It is entirely different and pretentious to demand your audience know of and for the purpose of your story embrace "popular" physics vis "black hole's." Dave becomes a god is literally "light years" from "I am, always have been and always will be."

I am left to wonder what "Interstellar" would have been if the script had been in the control of James Cameron, Peter Jackson or even Joss Whedon; Directors who are also accomplished writers. Aside from the marketability of such a "super-team," the product (aka: "Interstellar") could have been so much more emotionally powerful it is wondrous to consider.

"Interstellar" is a visual triumph. But unlike the films that suggest it ("2001," "The Abyss," "Donnie Darko," and others) it lacks the literate/emotional connection that can only be provided by great screen writing. If this is the best Christopher Nolan gives his audience, he will be well remembered and respected. Me? I hope he finds his Muse, the writer who creates scripts worthy of, fulfilling of, his ability to make what he sees available to us.

May I suggest Joss Whedon...

Thanos looms...