A downside of shooting on film - you can see focus on big HD monitor.
I found the film a frustrating mix of amazing ideas and sentimental silliness, of astounding visual scenes and clunky pacing. I wanted to like it, and it wanted to be 2001 but in the end I found it not emotionally engaging enough. All that cross-cutting between fascinating space scenes and sub-Speilberg emoting back on earth took me out of the film. I wanted to be awed but found it ultimately less than profound.
That said Mcconaughey was more than solid and the production design was pretty great. Don't get me started on the robot though. It reminded me of R2D2 in the way they would conveniently cut away every time it had to move in a way that design clearly couldn't.
Have to say I more or less agree with you. I'm not sure Nolan is a good visual director despite creating many great visuals. The difference is the way they're put together. Also the score was unexciting. It failed to capture a sense of awe a lot of the time. Compare it to the vastly more effective Gravity soundtrack.
I just saw an IMAX film print and I feel like Nolan is living in the past. It didn't look any better than Gravity did on digital IMAX projection. In fact to me it didn't look nearly as good. Think of all the labour and resources that go into shooting, printing and lugging film prints.
Using miniatures and real props rather than CGI on the other hand is an argument I'm much more open to. Anyone want to discuss the directing technique in the film?
This is amazing. I like that they show it breaking apart a bit on impossible shots, revealing how the tech works.
These are some that actually scared me:
Let The Right One In
28 Weeks Later
A Nightmare On Elm Street