back to article Interstellar: An awesome sci-fi spectacle – just cut the hamminess, please

The weight of expectation is a heavy burden and thanks to a clever information-withholding marketing campaign, the formidable Batman trilogy and the eye-opening Inception, Christopher Nolan’s space epic Interstellar has more than its fair share. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that it buckles somewhat under the pressure. Alien …

  1. Hero Protagonist

    Why does humanity deserve to survive?

    Hmm, starts with L.... Linux? Lager? LOHAN? Legos? Am I getting warm?

    1. tony2heads
      Pint

      Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

      I'll pick lager

      1. TitterYeNot
        Pint

        Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

        "I'll pick lager"

        InterStella, obviously...

    2. SDoradus

      Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

      The short answer is, it doesn't. Perhaps the point of the film was to hammer this home.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

        "Liberate tutemet ex infernis"

        1. SDoradus

          Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

          More or less what Elon Musk would say. But it's too late really and has been since the nuclear option was foreclosed on.

          Besides, he'd either put it in English or at least get the Latin right (tutemet isn't indeclinable, the first "tu" declines, so my fifth form Latin makes that tetemet... except the whole phrase reeks. Try 'liberate me ex inferis" (the n in infernis is not often observed in late medieval Latin, cf. the cognate French L'Enfer).

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

        "The short answer is, it doesn't."

        Roadside Picnic starts off with this citation by Robert Penn Warren:

        "You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."

        Deal with it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

          "You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."

          That is a fine quote and i would like to contribute one from one of the greatest minds of the 20th century;

          " You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead" (Stan Laurel 'BRATS' 1930)

          Equally poignant, you must agree?

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

            Equally poignant, you must agree?

            No. Go back to /b/.

            1. SDoradus

              Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

              Yes. Equally poignant in that there's no sense in disputing the relative merits of two worthless statements.

              Steven Baxter has the end of the human gene line sixty million years from now by which time we're a gazelle-like creature hunted to extinction. When we're gone, we won't be around to think either proposition poignant.

        2. SDoradus

          Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

          "You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of." Actually you make the good out of what you control, good or bad.

          Besides, as Robert Penn Warren pointed out in almost the same breath (in All the King's Men), he wondered if [the Boss] believed what he had said: "it was scarcely consistent".

          I decline to take my inspiration for saving the world from a science fiction novel, let alone science fantasy, let alone science fantasy quoting a poet who's not sure what he's saying.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

            I decline to take my inspiration for saving the world from a science fiction novel, let alone science fantasy, let alone science fantasy quoting a poet who's not sure what he's saying.

            That must be one of the most hipster edgy things I have ever heard.

            Try 'liberate me ex inferis"

            That_is_the_point.jpg

            And my latin courses are a bit way back now, and why are you pretending to know latin anyway?

            1. SDoradus

              Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

              "That must be one of the most hipster edgy things I have ever heard."

              Oooh, compliments!

              "And my latin courses are a bit way back now, and why are you pretending to know latin anyway?"

              Almost certainly not as far back as mine, and probably because (a) I was taught it properly, and (b) I later took an honours in Romance languages with a minor in Linguistics, including the transition from Latin to Old French. Why? Because the University had the best crèche in town and it was a hell of a lot cheaper than other ways of having my kids looked after while at work. But hey! You can imagine I'm ignorant if you want! I'm sure you will!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why does humanity deserve to survive?

      It must be Lager Loving Lesbians then.

  2. SDoradus

    Phil Plait hates it

    Oddly, Phil Plait - the bad astronomer - hated "Interstellar" to pieces, because he thought the science was fake. A number of other big names in Physics sort of disapproved too, but Plait caught my attention first because he seemed to be disrespecting the contribution of Kip Thorne, and calling Thorne out on violations of relativistic physics seems like an exceptionally dangerous thing to do.

    So I began looking into some of the references Plait provided for why the film had huge Physics plot holes, and almost the first one was a PDF of an article by Kim Griest showing that a black hole has no stable orbit beyond three black hole radii. Plait's points included the impossibility of a planet that close being other than tidally locked, as well was that it would fall into the singularity. His most trenchant point related to the extreme time dilation for visitors to the planet. You don't get such time dilation unless you're well inside where stable orbits can form, so such a planet couldn't possibly exist.

    The big problem is that throughout, Plait was assuming the black hole followed the Schwarzchild metric. Certainly his main reference (Griest's paper) made that choice explicit. But this, as Thorne surely knew, is hardly likely since only non-rotating black holes are that simple, and I just checked - the "Interstellar" website explicitly states the black hole is spinning.

    An uncharged rotating black hole is going to follow the Kerr metric, which despite being described in closed form is extremely hard to find solutions to. The solution space is so weird that even the numerical relativity specialists wouldn't care to give a general solution to the stable path of a planet; it's all going to be very contingent on the particular case.

    Plait's other objections, aside from the usual retching at the schmaltzy dialogue, also need to be taken with a grain of salt. They include the unlikelihood of launching the craft from the NASA lab where the research was done, the energy budget, the lack of funding from a US in crisis, etc. But the film is silent on these matters and it's not hard to dream up scenarios which would fit. For example reactivation of the NERVA engine projects in secret.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Phil Plait hates it

      I vote to send Kip & Phil off into space with a mission to find a wormhole. There thay can argure the toss to their heards content.

      In the meantime, leave the film to stand on its own merits (if any)

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Phil Plait hates it

      Woah they did those kind of errors? This being a story made out of whole cloth, where good Homeric skills can produce a yarn that doesn't violate the basics that one is proud to tell everyone one has taken into account is a let-down. Hollywood as usual.

      1. SDoradus

        Re: Phil Plait hates it

        Actually I did pick up on one thing which Plait in his Slate article either missed, or thought wouldn't be understood. He mentioned that one has to be close to a Schwartzchild-metric event horizon for really large time dilations like that in the movie (which was about 1:62000). A little playing with the numbers would have shown just how catastrophically asymptotic that curve is, and illustrated his point rather better than overblown rhetoric.

        Plait seems to assume the film's black hole is non-rotating and small (a few solar masses) but Thorne has made it clear it's a rotating supermassive one, so the numbers are a bit pointless. But let's try. For purposes of illustration let's take Plait's view and set the mass at 6Msol. Then a time dilation ratio of 1:32 occurs a bit more than half a kilometre from the event horizon. Dilation of 1:62000 occurs at just a foot from the event horizon, and a ten-million fold dilation happens just two millimetres away!

        So never mind tides. What would happen to a person when time dilation is so different on one side of the brain that the signals are out of sync with the other side?

        1. Mike Bell

          Re: Phil Plait hates it

          "So never mind tides. What would happen to a person when time dilation is so different on one side of the brain that the signals are out of sync with the other side?"

          For time dilation to vary by any significant amount over a range of a few centimetres (the width of a brain), there would be no getting away from the fact that huge tidal forces would be involved. I suspect your brain - and the rest of your body - would be stretched out mush long before you started having mental problems.

          1. SDoradus

            Re: Phil Plait hates it

            "For time dilation to vary by any significant amount over a range of a few centimetres (the width of a brain), there would be no getting away from the fact that huge tidal forces would be involved. I suspect your brain - and the rest of your body - would be stretched out mush long before you started having mental problems."

            That's the curious thing. There was a reason I stipulated "Never mind tidal forces."

            The above scenario turns out not to be the case, for a supermassive black hole such as the one in "Interstellar". It's well established that for supermassive black holes tidal forces are minimal at the event horizon, simply because it's so far from the singularity. I realize that's hard to believe so I'll supply a few references relating to free-fall through the horizon:

            <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-if-earth-crossed-the-event-horizon-of-a-supermassive-black-hole.703198/>

            "Then you will experience only tidal forces (forces that depend not on the strength o fthe gravitational field, but on the difference between its strength at two nearby points) and these can be made arbitrarily small by making the black hole arbitrarily large."

            Or, HubbleSite's description:

            <http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q16.html>

            "If you fall into a supermassive black hole, your body remains intact, even as you cross the event horizon."

            Finally:

            <http://blackholes.stardate.org/resources/faqs/faq.php?p=close-to-black-hole>

            "Tidal gravity is less pronounced for an object that approaches a supermassive black hole, because there's a gentler "slope" in the changing gravity field."

            I hope that establishes the point. And yet: Tidal forces might be minimal passing through the event horizon of a supermassive black hole, but that still leaves us with the asymptotic time dilation anomaly.

            The apparent contradiction may be due to the very artificial nature of the Schwarzchild metric - nearly every imaginable stellar catastrophe leading to a black hole involves huge angular momentum which the BH would keep, so it's hard to see how a realistic BH can avoid following the Kerr metric instead.

            And yet, the Schwarzchild metric can't be that far from a suitable approximation, since Hubble and other supertelescopes of the modern era can actually resolve accretion disks with the sharp interior edge characteristic of the Schwarzchild model.

    3. VeganVegan
      Mushroom

      Re: Phil Plait hates it

      Having not seen the film yet, nor read any of the papers, I do have a question:

      Do they deal with the ferocious radiation generated by the black hole, that would fry a human (and, I suspect, most electronics) in no time?

      1. SDoradus

        Re: Phil Plait hates it

        That was another of Plait's points, but it's another canard. Accretion disks do radiate hugely, but the worst the "Interstellar" probe would see is X-rays except at the rotational axis (where jets form) and in the plane of the disk (where you would get accelerated massive particles in some numbers). The path of the probe avoided both, which was, one suspects, deliberate.

        The crew would need to have adequate shielding, perhaps a water-ice shroud over a 'safe room', but for photons this isn't too hard. Particulate radiation - and cosmic rays - would have been a different matter, depending on the range-energy curves, and I can't find my copy of Leighton.

        Also nearly all the X-rays are emitted near the internal edge of the accretion disk, if there is one. Some black holes are so old they've cleared the stellar neighbourhood so no accretion disk exists. Others are so massive the accretion disk doesn't take a recognizable form.

        Consider a supermassive Schwartzchild-metric black hole (say, a hundred million solar masses) - we're making the same assumption Plait would, here. It would have a Schwartzchild radius three hundred million kilometres out - you'd barely know you'd passed the event horizon. In particular, this means the inner edge of the accretion disk would be nearly a billion klicks from the singularity. The material would orbit quite slowly, thank you, and barely radiate at all by comparison with a hole of just six solar masses.

        Perhaps just enough to keep a planet warm, thereby answering another of Plait's criticisms.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Phil Plait hates it

          > I can't find my copy of Leighton.

          DAT NAMEDROPPING.

          > Schwartzchild

          Oh no, sorry.

          1. SDoradus

            Re: Phil Plait hates it

            "> I can't find my copy of Leighton.

            DAT NAMEDROPPING.

            > Schwartzchild

            Oh no, sorry."

            Not sure what your point was. It's a very old book. Robert Leighton, that is, 'Principles of Modern Physics', and the range-energy curves I used were in the appendix.

    4. Waspy

      Re: Phil Plait hates it

      I'll need to read up phil on this, his cross-examinations are always fun to read but one of the many annoying things for me was having the characters propelled into earth orbit atop a traditional chemical rocket with stages etc...and then later on just zooming around in a planet's atmosphere and off back into orbit as if it is just a pull back on the control column away (as a spaceship in star wars would do, and on a planet with higher than earth's gravity to boot). There are tons of other really annoying things about this film but that is an obvious fatal flaw. Also there is just no sense of wonder...It's as if they are just on a little day trip out. Do space opera or do hard sci-fi, you can't mix them.

      1. SDoradus

        Re: Phil Plait hates it

        Wasn't the zooming done by the "Ranger" shuttles? The engines could be throttleable NERVA types, say. The S-N stage was certified ready for Mars missions by NASA back around 1971 I think. I don't see a hydrogen tank, though. More importantly, I agree about space opera vs. hard SF. In the old days the criterion for hard SF used to be "allow yourself ONE impossibility". These days, anything goes.

        1. Waspy

          Re: Phil Plait hates it

          Haha, yep, one impossibility only for hard scifi...but I guess people don't care enough to notice the glaring scientific holes in films like this (ironically enough scientific ignorance was covered in one the films best scenes when the main character mocks the teacher for believing moon hoax claptrap... Scientific education in the classroom and in society is a whole other discussion though!). It's either that or I'm a boring pedant/hard to please. Probably a bit of all of the above.

          Thing is, a lot of these things could have at least been partly fixed by adding in another two seconds of dialogue - if they had mentioned nerva engines or some sort of reaction engines limited type ramjet I would have been happy enough in this example...but I guess people like Christopher nolan don't care enough about the chosen genre to bother with this sort of thing. They'd probably argue "we are just trying to entertain people". Well, I for one was not really entertained...

  3. Gene Cash Silver badge
    FAIL

    "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

    Damn, that must be the good crack. Open a window and let the fumes out.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

      I came to the comment page with the following already in my cut-n-paste buffer:

      "...Like Alfonso Cuarón did with Gravity, ... to depict space as accurately..."

      Yeah, everytime time I look up at the ISS, I can clearly see a couple of other space stations trailing closely behind. In the exact same orbit. And within convenient space-walking distance.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

        It's the Benny Hill Space Station Train.

      2. ISP

        Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

        "I came to the comment page with the following already in my cut-n-paste buffer:"

        Shame you snipped the important part then: "as accurately as the plot and limitations of special effects allow"

        As I understand it the research was done and script outlines were written that were even more accurate, but doubled the running time with exposition on orbital mechanics totally robbing it of dramatic tension. Best to accept this as an example of the tropes "acceptable breaks with reality" and "reality is unrealistic"

        If you can name a good sci fi film with a more accurate depiction of space flight please do.

        1. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

          ISP: "If you can name a good sci fi film..."

          You are asking a lot, even within just the above extract.

        2. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

          Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

          The 2001 Jupiter scenes were shot on location...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

            'The 2001 Jupiter scenes were shot on location...'

            Wow Dodgy, i knew Kubrick was good but i didn't know he was that good...what a pro...all the way to Jupiter and back for a fuckin film! Now that is an 'Auteur'.

        3. Vic

          Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

          Shame you snipped the important part then: "as accurately as the plot and limitations of special effects allow"

          That's like saying that my old Ford Cortina was supersonic, "as accurately as the roads and limitations of the car allow". It wasn't supersonic. It was barely mobile.

          Vic.

          1. SDoradus

            Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

            ' That's like saying that my old Ford Cortina was supersonic, "as accurately as the roads and limitations of the car allow". It wasn't supersonic. It was barely mobile. '

            Oh, I don't know. I'm sure your old Cortina would have been supersonic in some reference frame, even idling in neutral.

        4. SDoradus

          Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

          Shame you snipped the important part then: "as accurately as the plot and limitations of special effects allow"

          Finally, some sanity.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: "Gravity" was accurate and realistic? Really?

            Shame you snipped the important part then: "as accurately as the plot and limitations of special effects allow"

            You do realize that the plot is fully constructed and can be molded around realistic premises in the first place?

  4. Disko
    Coat

    ....Loot, to be got from other planets...

    mine's the one with the bottle of rum in the pocket...

  5. jason 7

    After his last two movies...

    ...I'll wait to see it on Prime Streaming in a couple of years.

    In no hurry. C'mon, whilst the guy comes up with nice visuals his scripts and plots have more holes than a cheese grater...or a Damon Lindelof screenplay.

  6. Anomalous Cowshed

    Fancy that!

    Such a nice cockney bloke, and him a professor now! My word!

    1. i like crisps
      Megaphone

      Re: Fancy that!

      "You're only supposed to blow up the bloody singularity!"...is what Caine would've said if i'd written his lines.

      ICON: The James Cameron personal development tool.

  7. i like crisps
    Alien

    Can i suggest...

    ...that after watching 'Interstellar' you then 'cleanse your palate' with a viewing of Disneys 'The Black Hole'....either that or 'Spaceballs', its up to you.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Can i suggest...

      'The Black Hole' - That was actually mostly pretty good fun. That Vincent character should just have looked less like a fucking roboticized pokemon (Kid appeal in a dark movie like that? Remember that was when "dark" was not "hollering-Vader-style" mainstream. I sure hope someone at Disney got locked in the cellar for that)

      'Spaceballs' - Cringeworthy american "comedy". Avoid unless it is thrown in as a late-night special.

    2. TheProf
      Happy

      Re: Can i suggest...

      Damn! I've got the theme from The Black Hole stuck in my head. I'll have to excavate the DVD and watch it now.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can i suggest...

      "...that after watching 'Interstellar' you then 'cleanse your palate' with a viewing of Disneys 'The Black Hole'....either that or 'Spaceballs', its up to you."

      Oh yes Spaceballs please!

      Far far more re-watchable than the film which inspired it..

  8. Jes.e

    Isn't this the premise of..

    "The Earth is in turmoil, all the crops are dying of blight and everyone is doomed, so admittedly, it’s not a particularly cheery premise."

    Isn't that the premise of Lost in Space?

    [checks Wikipedia]

    Ah, "overpopulation" in the original TV series with resource exhaustion being added (if memory serves) in the movie (umm) adaption.

    Why do people of the future want to live on planets anyway?

    Dangerous places with deep gravity wells one has to extract oneself from if you want to actually go anywhere..

    I mean, with the resources of a mere solar system you could at least build an orbital while tidying up the mess that is all those comets and asteroids and stuff just lying about in our own neighborhood couldn't one?!?

    Sheesh. Movie SF these days..

    1. i like crisps
      Terminator

      Re: Isn't this the premise of..

      Some old SCI-FI i would like to see remade would be Soylent Green and Logans Run....i'm thinking Bruce Willis for the lead in Soylent and Benedict Cucumber for Logans.

      ICON: I like the first Terminator too.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Isn't this the premise of..

      We've got a ton... no, a metric ton... nope, a planetary lot of stuff here on earth. How long would it take to use it all "up"?

    3. SDoradus

      Re: Isn't this the premise of..

      "Why do people of the future want to live on planets anyway?"

      Excellent point. By 2042, say we could have AIs that are recognizably human from a Turing-test point of view. Send those out to space: 'be good little von Neumann machines, go forth, and prosper.' Since we created them, we'd be their god. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter (in at least geological time) their god would be dead.

      Somehow I don't think the movie-going public would pay to watch that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Isn't this the premise of..

        'Somehow I don't think the movie-going public would pay to watch that.'

        It all depends on which group of the movie-going public you target. It would certainly garner interest from the 'Adult' viewers if you were prepared to 'do a Porn'. I for one would be interested in some 'Hot AI Anal' action...bit niche i know, but my palate is so jaded now that something new would be a blessing.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Isn't this the premise of..

        Excellent point. By 2042, say we could have AIs that are recognizably human from a Turing-test point of view. Send those out to space: 'be good little von Neumann machines, go forth, and prosper.' Since we created them, we'd be their god. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter (in at least geological time) their god would be dead.

        > recognizably human from a Turing-test point of view

        Utter Gibberish

        > Since we created them, we'd be their god.

        More utter gibberish. Either it is intelligent or it behaves like a neurotic religious nutcase or a child. Choose one.

        > 'be good little von Neumann machines'

        I hope to $DEITY you never get a position of responsibility in engineering. Ever.

        1. SDoradus

          Re: Isn't this the premise of..

          "Utter Gibberish"

          You don't say...

          "Either it is intelligent or it behaves like a neurotic religious nutcase or a child. Choose one."

          So there are no intelligent religious nutcases? Or children? Gee, that's harsh. Can't we do the usual engineering thing and pick two of three?

          "I hope to $DEITY you never get a position of responsibility in engineering. Ever."

          Regrettably, $DEITY did not grant your wish.

  9. stephajn
    Coat

    Needlessly long in some places

    The L stands for Long winded debates.

    When I went to see it I walked in knowing it was a few minutes shy of 3 hours. So I settled in for the long haul. I expected it to take some time before the humans would even lift off and so on, and I even expected there to be some drawn out discussions about how "this is our only hope."

    What I didn't expect were some scenes to be so painfully dragged out that I completely disengaged from the movie and started watching Star Trek 2 in my head.

    That having been said, I enjoyed it for the most part and might even go again to see it on an IMAX screen. This time I'm whipping out my smartphone to tune into Star Trek 2 for real during those drawn out scenes! :)

    Reaching for my smartphone now....

  10. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    "...The Earth is in turmoil, all the crops are dying of blight and everyone is doomed, so admittedly, it’s not a particularly cheery premise...

    Ah. So we need to set up a decent sized hydroponics facility in orbit, then? That would seem to be the obvious activity. Where do black holes come into that?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The moon seems a good candidate. Close, easy to get to, lots of rock/silicon and oh, lots of light?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The moon.....

        and....lethal radiation.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: The moon.....

          No volatiles will make your life hard.

          1. Swarthy

            Re: The moon.....

            Well, She is a Harsh Mistress....

  11. Waspy

    I've just come home after seeing it...I can confirm that this film is truly terrible

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      So did the (Kerr) black hole suck all the oxygen out of the theatre?

  12. St3n

    Just watched it...

    The start of the film was way too slow, and the ending was dreadful.

    The rest of it was fine though & T.A.R.S lines always got a laugh. If they shortened the film to 2 hours & changed that ending, it'd be a spectacular film....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just watched it...

      I'm guessing the ending is...

      [Possible spoilers?]

      They travel back in time and warn everyone not to waste the earth's resources?

      Or they did the Lucas/Spielberg mistake and "Aliens Save the Day".

      1. St3n

        Re: Just watched it...

        Combine those guesses & you wouldn't be far off...

  13. MatsSvensson

    Can't wait to see this movie, and find out if that one dude manages to move earths population to another planet.

  14. Zack Mollusc
    Meh

    Overpopulation? Resource depletion?

    Wow, this film really has no basis in reality at all.

    According to the hordes of shrieking commentators on the internet, the Earth's population will naturally level off and resources will last forever. Stupid so-called scientists and their ludicrous screenplays.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interstellar is set in 2070

    And our US brothers are still measuring length in feet. Maybe on the new worlds they'll abandon imperial units.

  16. sniff

    generic over reactive movie critic response!

    This movie critic is an idiot. The film was awesome. It always makes me laugh how the critics says how a movie should be and not what the writer intended it how to be. This film was executed as it should have been as detailed by the writer, if you don't like it because it didn't have a bit of humour here and there then you probably shouldn't watch a serious sci fi film? I mean I'm pretty sure it was advertised as such with the teasers and trailers etc? Or am I just not getting the picture with regards to critics? Oh wait.... Lol there critics, thats what they do, make stuff up to critisize about, otherwise they would be out of the job. There what I like to call a fake trade just like a chocolate fireguards!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like