For a while now, Nolan's films have been building in size and growing in running time. For Nolan, bigger and longer indicates the import of your film - it shows it's an epic. But whereas The Dark Knight Rises - with its panoply of characters old and new, as well as its various twists and turns - was overstuffed, Interstellar finds itself stretching out a thin plot over almost three hours. The film IS ambitious, so it can occasionally feel like it justifies the length, but it's mostly hollow, and at least half an hour too long. The biggest surprise, considering it's a Nolan film, is that some stretches are quite simply boring. Do we, for example, need to spend so much time on Dr Mann's planet when his basic motivation is only ever to steal the Endeavour? Beginning on his planet, we go from set-piece to set-piece, but they drag not just because the entire Mann sequence feels like a detour into a much duller film starring Matt Damon as the villain, but because - with the apparent lack of care for the characters - it feels like there's so little at stake. Also look to the moment in which the older Murph burns her brother's crops so he's drawn away and she can 'infiltrate' his open house that she has every right to just walk into. Nolan thinks he's adding tension, but really he's just unnecessarily extending another sequence.
Lover of film, writer of words, pretentious beyond belief. Thinks Scorsese and Kubrick are the kings of cinema, but PT Anderson and David Fincher are the dashing young princes. Follow Brogan on twitter if you can take shameless self-promotion: @BroganMorris1
