To draw one last final comparison with Kubrick's 2001 would seem overly harsh were it not for the fact that this is an assessment of Interstellar's shortcomings as a potential masterpiece and that Christopher Nolan himself has stated just how important Kubrick's own film was as a point of influence. But in comparing the endings of these two films you can truly see just how short Interstellar falls alongside 2001. Whereas the ending in 2001: A Space Odyssey works so well because of its ambiguity, Interstellar's considerably more clear cut conclusion - and the "twist" which many saw coming the moment Murph started to mention ghosts to her father in the opening scenes - felt like a contrived attempt to escape from the science upon which the film is largely founded and suggest that love and fatherhood are the most powerful forces in the universe. If this sounds like the kind of sentimentality you might expect from Steven Spielberg, his previous attachment to the project might offer a clue as to why Interstellar ends with such a Hollywood cliche. Like the overuse of Dylan Thomas's poetry "Do not go gentle into that good night" these emotional appeals felt all too simplistic, as if Nolan and his collaborators found themselves crushed under the weight of their ambitions and reverted back to mainstream audience expectations. A masterpiece would bravely go where no film has gone before - Interstellar ultimately orbits those masterpieces it aspires to emulate. Do you think Interstellar could be considered a masterpiece or do you agree with the problems on this list? Why not post a comment and let us know below?
