The sense I really got from the film was that it tried to incorporate too many concepts and story lines into a single film and in the end failed.

The greatest flaws were

(1) A distinct problem with characterization. For example, Doyle was never even really introduced before his untimely death. His sole purpose was to fuel 'grief' and 'tension' between Conn and Brands – but it failed even at this. For many audiences, they probably never even remembered who Doyle was 5 minutes after his death. Soon after this, Nolan had the chance to redeem himself by showing the toll that 23 years of waiting had on Romilly. Instead, a many who has been in solitude for 23 years shows remarkable sanity. Days later he dies in an explosion that is not only unremarkable but denies the audience a chance of having any empathy for Romilly. Tom, Conns son, is never characterized properly in the first act. Subsequently Nolan attempts to incorporate him with a series of videos from home. It does allow the audience to relate to him somewhat, but this is squandered by a poor foundation. Later on, his relationship with Murph seems shallow and unintimate. He is not even mentioned by Conn when he returns from the tesserect, one begs to ask is Tom even Conns son. I would also say that Mann's character is completely unnecessary and serves little purpose. Nolan has undoubtedly placed Mann in an attempt to portray the thematic concern of humanity's ability for corruption and selfishness. Mann is the fallen knight, the expression of humanity's dark side. Yet the failure of Nolan to really push this thematic concern earlier on really makes Mann's role incongruent to the bigger picture in the movie. Finally Brands relationship with Conn is not realized in any meaningful way. She gives a speech on how Love transcends time – yet this seems contrived and artificial. What's more incongruent is her love with "Edmonds" who we never even see in person and who we can not empathize with in any manner. Furthermore one wonders why Conn chooses to go back to Brands at the ending of the movie; is it friendship or is it love? One surmises it is love; but this is not made clear at all.

2) Nolanfailed to understand Science fiction as a genre. Look at the classics which have really shaped science fiction as a genre. Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey. One of the keys to Kubrick's film was the black monolith whose role is only implied but never explained. This intrinsic mystery is a facet that is replayed again and again; thick paper cranes in Blade Runner. There was no real sense of mystery in interstellar.

Nolan was too technical in his film and attempted to pass fake science as real science. I agree that science fiction utilizes fake science; but almost all film makers either portray the science as completely (1) impossible e.g. Star trek or (2) Possible and believable e.g. Gravity and Gattaca. When you try to explain real science – do it properly or don't do it at all. The science of Interstellar would have been acceptable if Nolan had simply not gone to great lengths to explain it to the audience and make it seem real.

OVERALL impressions - quite disappointing from Nolan. Too many ideas and characters and not enough coherence to really make it a profound film.